Samantha Morton Movie:

				Salesrank: 185224
		Used Price: $31.85
		MPAA Rating: PG (Parental Guidance Suggested) Media: DVD

Editorial Review:
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 (Ciarán 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

Jane Eyre (A&E, 1997) [Region 2] Reviews:
A truncated, cheap Jane Eyre
2009-12-07 - I've been wanting to watch this version of JE for years. Despite seeing scores of negative reviews here, I thought to myself--it can't possibly be that bad. It was made back in A&E's classics heyday. [Remember when A&E once stood for Arts & Entertainment? But I diverge.] It's stars Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton. It's Jane Eyre! How could it possibly be mucked up?

Despite having everything going for it, this version doesn't live up to expectations. There are several reasons for this:

~The atmosphere. You won't feel submerged in Jane's world. The sets and costumes look cheap. What is more, the gothic touches are missing. For example, the red room sequence. The camera just flashes around the room-but it doesn't show us the shadows, the things Jane imagines, that make her scared. It's just a room.

~the script. JE is dense book so not everything is going to be able to be packed in a two hour movie but too much was left out of this movie. Where is the gypsy scene? Where is Jane's discovery that she is not solely an orphan but has family? Where's Jane's conversations with Mrs. Reed when she returns home? Even on a basic level, the script suffers--rather than develop plot points, it just jumps to them as the story requires. For example, the St. John sequence is too short. The Blanche Ingram sequence is especially undeveloped.

~the acting. Samantha Morton is the saving grace of this production. Her Jane is gentle but formidable, quiet but with a backbone. Ciaran Hinds is not a one-note actor, but as Mr. Rochester, he is only shown as being agitated, spiteful and mean. Even when he is kind, he is cruel. Jane would never fall in love with this Rochester.

At times, it also feels like a parody. The parody elements particularly come through in the handling of Bertha Rochester. It's like watching a Monty Python sketch when she's onscreen.

In short, this is a dud! It's worth watching in order to be able the appreciate how good the 06 version is. Also, if you are in the know about BBC programs, it can amusing to watch just to see the once and future Captain Wentworths both featured in the same production. Otherwise, skip it.

Good - but shop around
2009-11-16 - I found this interpretation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre good. One need only view various interpretations, such as the 1944 Orson Welles film, starring both himself and Joan Fontaine, to appreciate this 1997 version. Twentieth Century Fox's wartime genre encapsulates the studio art department with very poorly executed visuals in the 1944 film. One knows without doubt that this was made in Hollywood.
However, each version is different, with different characterizations,style and pace. This 1997 original A & E version is good stylistically, the lead characters give earnest interpretations, but seem a bit caricatured and one-dimensional.
I have read the various reviews praising the Timothy Dalton version and cannot for the life of me understand the praise. He is entirely too wooden and one-dimensional. One does not even perceive the character of Rochester, with its depths and nuances, in his portrayal.
The best film Jane Eyre thus far, in my opinion, is the BBC 1973 version with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston, also available through Amazon.com. Read my review on this version. It lacks the sumptiousness of the latter entries but the acting is first rate. This 1973 version has been unanimously hailed as one of the best interpretations of Jane Eyre.

Disappointing Version Of A Classic Love Story/Suspense Thriller. Grossly Overacted By Ciaran Hinds.
2009-08-07 - This "Film" version of the classic story by Charlotte Bronte is grossly overacted by Ciaran Hinds. Personally, I found him to be too harsh and cruel, barely even nice. However, Samantha Morton balanced it out quite well as the title character, though. I also didn't like the omission of the middle scenes with Mrs. Reed, which I feel are very important to the story. I prefer Timothy Dalton (4 years before he embodied the role of James Bond in "The Living Daylights") as Rochester. He was very well suited to the part; I read somewhere that he considers his role as Edward Rochester his personal favourite. Gemma Jones ("Sense & Sensibility") was great as Mrs. Fairfax. If you're looking for a faithful version of "Jane Eyre," I highly recommend the 1983 BBC miniseries starring Timothy Dalton, the 1944 version starring Orson Welles or the 1996 version starring William Hurt. This film version is Not Rated.

Fantastic Jane. Bad Version!
2009-07-21 - First of all I would like to say that Samantha morton was one of the best Jane. She was really believable in her role and her acting was fantastic. it is really a pity she got put in this version. I have to main objections to the book which you may read here below if you wish.
My objections to the books are this: First of all I did not like Ciaran Hinds as Mr Rochester. I saw him a few months ago in Persuasion and was so Happy in his portrayal of Captain Wentworth. It was not the case with his sad portrayal of Edward Rochester. He seemed to think that Mr Rochester was an very, very, very angry man and nothing more. I never really liked Edward's character but he was a lot more complicated than that. He may be weak and selfish but he is also brooding, moody and passionate. To see a proper portrayal of Rochester. You must refer to the performances of Micheal Jayston, Toby Stephens and Timothy Dalton. Especially Dalton! Ciaran Hinds did nothing but scream all the time. And I never could imagine Mr. Rochester with a mustache.
Secondly I would have liked the script to be a little closer to the novel. The first half is not that bad but the second is horrid. Nothing is mentioned of Jane inheriting a fortune and one of St John's sister is deleted. And speaking of St John we don't get to know how mesmerizing his character is(And I have definatly seen Rupert Penry-Jones look better). The version was just too short! Jane and Rochester's readmitting their love for each other is shortened into one scene but Morton managed to pull it off quite well. I repeat she is the only cause why I do not give this version one star.
Need I say more? Those are the main things I find disagreable but there are several more I could state, but I will not waste my time and I think I have made my points.
To conclude if you want to watch this movie so badly go watch it on the internet. If it happens to please you and you wish to see it agin then you may buy it. If you wish to see a truly fantastic version. Then I suggest you buy the 1983 version. If you want to see other ones then also buy the 1973 or the 2006 version. They are definitely better than this one.
Thank you for your time.

Jane Eyre 1997 Film
2009-05-11 - 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.