 |
Jane Eyre (A&E, 1997) by Robert Young
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Barbara Keogh, Ben Sowden, Deborah Findlay, Joanna Scanlan, Laura Harling Director: Robert Young Brand: A&E Producer: Delia Fine Producer: Greg Brenman Producer: Hugh Warren Writer: Charlotte Bront? Writer: Kay Mellor Writer: Peter Wright Writer: Richard Hawley DVD: Region Code 0 Audio: English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo; English (Subtitled) Format: Closed-captioned, Color, DVD-Video, NTSC Picture Format: Academy Ratio, 1.33:1 Running Time: 108 minutes Published: 1999-01-01 DVD Release Date: 1999-10-26 Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated) Studio: A&E Home Video
DVD Reviews of Jane Eyre (A&E, 1997)DVD Review: Jane Eyre 1997 Film Summary: 5 StarsThis 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.
DVD Review: "YOU ARE A RARE BREED MISS EYRE." AND EDWARD! Summary: 5 StarsTHIS IS ANOTHER VERSION OF JANE EYRE THAT I LOVE! THIS MR. EDWARD R. SCARED ME ,AT FIRST, WITH HIS ROUGH, LOUD, MANNER, BUT I STARTED, SEEING HIS GENTLE HEART, THAT HE KEEPS HIDDEN. JANE AND EDWARD, HAVE A LOT IN COMMON, AND YET THEY ARE SO DIFFERENT! 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! BUT THE MOST COMPLELLING, HEARTFELT SCENE WAS WHEN EDWARD, SCARRED, AND BROKEN, HAD TEARS ROLLING DOWN HIS FACE, WITH SO MUCH LOVE FOR JANE! I LOVE HAPPY ENDINGS! JANE AND EDWARD FINALLY HAD ONE!
DVD Review: The best of the four adaptaions I've seen so far Summary: 5 StarsWell, 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.
DVD Review: Not the Best Version...Not the Worst Summary: 3 StarsHaving 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.
DVD Review: If You've Never Seen or Read Jane Eyre: Summary: 2 Starseither 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 Ciar?n 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.) Ciar?n 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.
Description of Jane Eyre (A&E, 1997)Studio: A&e Home Video Release Date: 08/29/2000 Run time: 100 minutes Rating: Nr 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 (Ciar?n 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
|
 |