Jane Eyre opens Friday in select theaters (see times below)

Our rating:

In the 27th filmed adaptation of Jane Eyre (why not, right?), you can find everything you would expect to find: trees rustle, damp moors are crossed, wooded pathways are traversed, bonnets are worn, fireplaces burn, wicked schoolmarms are wicked and Judi Dench is scandalized. All the trappings of Charlotte Brontรซโ€™s familiar gothic love story are here, without feeling too gothic or dusty, and theyโ€™re crammed in at just around two hours so nobody gets bored.

Cary Fukunaga directs, this being only his second film, after 2009โ€™s Sin Nombre. Presumably, producers at Focus tapped a young sophomore in order to bring some freshness to the dog-eared text. But Fukunagaโ€™s style is familiar to anyone whoโ€™s watched a handful of mainstream movies from the past five years. Itโ€™s impossibly crisp, just handheld enough to feel contemporary without alienating anyone, and trades close-ups with mid-shots efficiently but without any energy. Itโ€™s a do-gooder style about which only a real old-timer would find anything new. Fukunagaโ€™s aesthetic was gratuitously at odds with the rough subject matter of his first film (gang violence, train-hopping immigrants, attempted rape), and in this film itโ€™s so rigidly in line with the middling tone of the adaptation that itโ€™s suffocating.

Jane Eyre is told partly in flashback, beginning with Jane (Mia Wasikowska, who was a boring stiff as a smart high school senior in The Kids Are All Right and brings the same spirit to this film) running from Mr. Rochesterโ€™s manor, so sick from her broken heart she might die. Sheโ€™s taken in by the Rivers siblings (Holliday Grainger, Tamzin Merchant and Jamie Bell, in full Masterpiece Theater mode) who ask where sheโ€™s come from. Jane isnโ€™t forthcoming, but the film obliges, flashing back to her life as a child with her cruel aunt. This structure is lifeless, and the film would have opened with much more spark if it had begun where the first flashback does: Young Jane (Amelia Clarkson) being pursued through her auntโ€™s house by her sword-wielding teenage cousin.

Jane is disowned by her aunt (Sally Hawkins, wasted) and is taken to a girlsโ€™ school where we pause just long enough to watch her make a friend who dies in the next scene. Then young adult Jane is let out into the real world and gets a job as a governess for Mr. Rochester, whom sheโ€™ll spend the rest of the movie inexplicably pining after.

Michael Fassbender, who was effective and amusingly one-note in Inglourious Basterds, plays Rochester, and this time a slightly more tuneful performance is required. Unfortunately, his Rochester is a stiff-jawed, spoiled rich guy who plays mind games with our dear Jane. (To be fair, Fukunagaโ€™s direction and the streamlined structure probably have a lot to do with this.) Jane Eyre is, in part, about a doomed love that shouldnโ€™t exist to begin with, so the character of Rochester shouldnโ€™t be sweeping audience members off their feet; there has to be discord between what Jane does and what we think is probably best for her. But the Rochester of this film version is such a needy, vacuous cipher that the Jane who loves him comes across as dumb, not doomed. A female director might have been more in tune with this challenge and found a way to meet both the needs of the story and the producers. Think of the smart, energetic and relatable Bright Star; that fresh gem of a film was brought to us by Jane Campion, who turns 57 this month.

But Fukunaga doesnโ€™t seem that interested in this story or these people. Itโ€™s understandable if the stuffed shirts of Rochester Manor didnโ€™t intrigue him, but he had a crazy lady in the attic to play around with. He doesnโ€™t bother to do anything with her, either. Perhaps worst of all, he has no feel for the love story, taking it as a pre-existing condition of the film rather than the element that should propel it. This is not to say, of course, that a woman would have definitely handled Brontรซโ€™s fiction better, but with so few opportunities given to female directors, it seems a shame that producers picked the wrong man for the job.

Bio: N.C. State graduate Nathan Gelgud lives in Brooklyn, N.Y., and writes about film. He also does film-inspired illustrations.Twitter: http://twitter.com/gelgud