This movie is not another attempt of adapting the novel and provide an alternative to the previous, famously bad adaptation from 1993. It's almost word by word, scene by scene copy of the previously used script, except now employing worse acting, poor cinematography (most scenes are shaky and poorly lighted, as if they were filmed by hand by unpaid amateurs), and terrible sound. I could hardly hear, not to mention understand what Rochester is saying because he hardly bothers to actually open his mouth, and it's all half-unaudible mumbling. I also don't really think the actress playing Antoinette has the right appearance to play a creole person. Also, the poorly done whitened hair and eyebrows meaning to make a young actress with skin as smooth as Spring flower petals look like an elderly woman who nursed the story's heroine is just sad to behold.
All in all this adaptation is not bringing any added value, it just takes the previous failure and makes it into an even bigger one.
2 out of 4 found this helpful