Jane Eyre (A&E, 1997) | 
| Director: Robert Young
Actors: Deborah Findlay, Laura Harling, Joanna Scanlan, Ben Sowden, Barbara Keogh
Studio: A&E Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $3.18
You Save: $16.77 (84%)
New (52) Used (22) from $3.14
Rating:  196 reviews
Sales Rank: 7002
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Edition: DVD
Region: 0
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
DVD Layers: 1
DVD Sides: 1
Picture Format: Academy Ratio
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.1 x 0.6
MPN: AAED70026D
ISBN: 0767020294
UPC: 733961700268
EAN: 9780767020299
ASIN: 0767020294
Theatrical Release Date: October 19, 1997
Publication Date: January 1, 1999
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Studio: A&e Home Video Release Date: 08/29/2000 Run time: 100 minutes Rating: Nr
Amazon.com
The fascinating British actress Samantha Morton stars as the titular heroine in this provocative version of Jane Eyre, based on Charlotte Bronte's oft-filmed, 1847 novel. The familiar contours of Bronte's story are all here: Jane, the unhappy orphan, grows up to become governess at Thornfield, a gloomy estate owned by the imperious and worldly, but curiously desperate, Mr. Rochester (Ciaran Hinds). While the latter's grasping attentions stir the inexperienced young woman, the gothic goings-on at Thornfield suggest layers of unwholesome secrecy in Rochester's life. Most productions of Jane Eyre carefully reflect Bronte's absorbing balance between romance, horror, and Jane's psychological passage to adulthood. But this 1997 television movie is interesting for its near-reckless emphasis on Jane and Rochester's mutual obsession and galloping jealousies. The dramatic strategy throws off the story's overall tone, but such problems are worth it to see Morton and Hinds explore Jane Eyre's darkest possibilities. --Tom Keogh
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 191 more reviews...
 Jane Eyre 1997 Film May 11, 2009
Strawberry Ann (San Antonio, TX USA)
This film follows pretty good with the novel by Charlotte Bronte, the only difference is that this film version makes St. John a little nicer than in the book and never shows that they are related. Besides this, I think this book is a good adaptation of the novel.
"YOU ARE A RARE BREED MISS EYRE." AND EDWARD! January 31, 2009
Teresa (NORTH CAROLINA, USA)
This is another version of Jane Eyre that I love! This Mr. Edward R., scared me ,at first, with his rough and loud manner, but I started seeing his gentle heart, that he keeps hidden, along with painful, lonely, heartbreaking, secrets of no hope!
Jane and Edward have a lot in common, and yet they are so different! Jane helps heal, Edward's broken, empty heart, and Edward is the first man that ever loved Jane, she has always been so alone, it did not take him long to see how special Jane, really was!
In the movie I loved the talk that Edward gives Jane, about Adele's mother, by the lake. And I love the part where Edward asks Jane about, why she did not write him a letter, while she was gone. And I loved the part where Edward asked Jane to watch the sunrise with him! I highly recommend this movie, I liked this version of Jane Eyre very much! I loved the intense, all consuming emotions, of this Mr. Edward R.!
But the most compelling, heartfelt scene was when Edward ,who was now, a scarred and broken man, with tears rolling down his face, with still so much love for Jane, while Jane helded him in her arms! It makes you wonder how it would feel, to be loved that way! I so love happy endings, and Jane and Edward finally had one!
The best of the four adaptaions I've seen so far January 23, 2009
City Of Rocks
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Well, at first I didn't think I was going to like this movie, because Mr. Rochester, who is of course rough at first, was over-the-top irate. He got so wild when Jane "bewitched" his horse that I thought he was going to take his wife's place in the attic. So over-the-top was his rough exterior that his passionate scenes with Jane at first evoked from me hearty laughter, which I don't think was the intended effect. She'd never like a guy like that, and he'd...well. I just wasn't seeing it. At first.
So why the five star rating? Because this is a difficult movie to get right. It's not five stars for perfection, but five stars for being far and away the best adaptation of the four I've seen so far.
It spares you lengthy portrayals of the scenes where a little goes a long way (Lowood, also the Auntie's stewardship of Jane, etc.) and instead saves the film for scenes that really need to be developed carefully in order for the lengthy novel to be credible onscreen. That is, Rochester and Jane need time to grow in their relationship. Some adaptations try to rush it and you see Jane falling in love with a crazy, irate cooky guy who explores his deepest affect, out loud and rather distastefully, to what appears onscreen to be a complete stranger not ridiculously fond of him. This version was a very nice effort, but there was one part a bit rushed-her missing him after she simply tells us they had more talks together. A minor detail. Her portrayal was very good and real. Compare it to the 1996 version (Hurt/Gainsbourg) where Rochester comments to Jane about the tears ready to come into her eyes. This is after Jane is forced to watch Rochester with the new chick on the block. Then he says, "or do I see them there now?" Problem is, she doesn't look at all like she's upset or about to cry, or even depressed, although perhaps disappointed and maybe slightly wounded. Under these circumstances, Rochester's assessment makes him look self-important, sadistic and weird.
Although, in this version (1997) I think Jane gets too passionate too soon, before Rochester has begun much transformation and become truly transparent and honest which I think took a bit away from the credibility. Then again, Jane comes from Lowood.
Bottom line: For delicate, complex development, sensitive performances, and for sparing us the stuff we don't need much of in favor of the parts that need the time to develop, I give it five. Nicely done.
 Not the Best Version...Not the Worst January 3, 2009
Andrew Raker (PA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Having read Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte in high school and having viewed many version of Jane Eyre, I believe this version is not the best or even the second best - and hence, not worth a person's time or money.
My reasons are as follows:
(1) The film is too short, leaving out too much of the novel. For instance, it completely skips Jane's conversation with her Aunt Reed when her aunt is on her deathbed.
(2) The acting is not as good as might be desired. The actors playing Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester just do not have the correct chemisty. (Disclaimer: I must admit that I always liked Timothy Dalton's performance in the 1983 BBC version, so my judgement might be impaired)
(3) The film does not develop the relationship between Jane and St. John Rivers nearly as much as it should have. Hence, it might be difficult for the viewer who has not read the novel to realize what a difficult choice Jane must make when she decides to refuse St. John's offer.
I recommend the following:
(1) Jane Eyre (1983) with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke - a BBC production totaling 311 minutes
(2) Jane Eyre (2006) with Ruth Wilson (II); Toby Stephens - a Masterpiece Theatre production totaling 228 minutes
Note:
However, I enjoyed this version more than the Jane Eyre (2003) Miramax production with William Hurt and Charlotte Gainsbourg.
 If You've Never Seen or Read Jane Eyre: January 1, 2009
Francesca Fiore (austin, tx)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
either skip this one all together, or watch it first- because it's pretty bad.
jane eyre has been my favourite book (i could read the book and watch most of the film versions any time with pleasure) since i was very young, and i ordered this copy thinking i would like it as much as the others.
wrong.
the acting is decent (i wouldn't expect less from Ciaran Hinds), the setting isn't too shabby, and it's fairly true to the the story- however there are few points that drove me absolutely crazy and kept me from getting swept up into the story.
1.) Mr.Rochester is a gruff, touchy type who likes his own way, he does NOT however, scream and yell at the drop of a hat. from the first scene, that's what he pretty much does the entire rest of the film.
2.) samantha morton just isn't jane eyre. period.
3.) Ciaran Hinds' mustache. it made him look like Hitler in a lot of scenes, and quite frankly it ruins all the heart rending moments.
it's sad, because i really wanted to like this movie. i even watched it twice. no good.
|
|
|
