As with any adaptation from book to film, Jane Eyre will inevitably not be viewed on its own terms.  The much-loved story of Jane - from her neglected childhood to the refuge she apparently finds at the house of the mysterious Mr Rochester - has bewitched generations, thus weighing the film down with high expectations.

So what can this Jane Eyre do to stand out? The main difference with this film is that it is not in chronological order.  It opens with our evidently distressed heroine running across desolate countryside, ending up in a remote house with Mr Rivers and his two sisters.  Jane then proceeds to remember what brought her to the house.

Giving the audience a sense of foreboding from the start, the structure also means that what Jane remembers comes across as exactly that: memories, not a story in itself.  With the audience waiting for her to get back to the present, her relationship with Mr Rochester feels more like filler rather than a main story.

The result is that the relationship feels rushed, as though the foreknowledge that something will distress Jane is enough to highlight the relationship’s importance.  The climax then doesn’t build and so falls somewhat flat. When we get back to the present, we are nearly at the end of the film.  Jane Eyre is one of those rare pieces of cinema that could actually do with being a bit longer.

Despite this structure, the film is by no means a disappointment.  Mia Wasikowska plays the disciplined, yet endearing Jane surprisingly well.  Michael Fassbender exudes Mr Rochester’s Byronic brooding, if sometimes a bit too much (and, at points, too Irish).   The abuse Jane suffers in her childhood will draw gasps from the audience, while haunting Bronte country is beautifully captured on film.

Overall then, this is by no means a bad adaptation, with a convincing cast and beautiful cinematography.  Its departure from the book provides its main flaw, but such is the risk of all adaptations struggling to exist outside of books that define and inspire generations.