| ||||||||||||||
Save now on popular classic TV favorites such as Charlies Angels, Sanford and Son, Soap and many more. Offer ends May 31, 2013. |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
You may think the world doesn't need another adaptation of Jane Eyre--but you're wrong. This new and wonderfully lush Masterpiece Theatre version, directed by Susanna White (who directed the equally sumptuous miniseries of Bleak House starring Gillian Anderson), contrasts Jane Eyre's vivid inner life with the harshness of her outer life; both Georgie Henley (The Chronicles of Narnia) as the young Jane and newcomer Ruth Wilson express the inner vitality of the outcast orphan girl whose spirit captures the heart of the rough, charismatic landowner Mr. Rochester (Toby Stephens, Die Another Day). Stephens, it must be said, is far too conventionally handsome for the part, but he makes up for it by capturing Rochester's abrasive and mercurial temperament. (Wilson's looks are perfect; at one moment she seems awkward and homely, at another utterly luminous.) Jane Eyre is so often remade because the story is so potent; this production brings all of the novel's juice and passion to the fore, emphasizing the characters' sensual experience while staying true to the restrictions and mores of the period. All in all, exceptional. --Bret Fetzer
Product Description
After a wretched childhood, orphaned Jane Eyre yearns for new experiences. She accepts a governess position at Thornfield Hall, where she tutors a lively French girl named Adele. She soon finds herself falling in love with the brooding master of the house - the passionate Mr. Rochester. Jane gradually wins his heart, but they must overcome the dark secrets of the past before they can find happiness. When Jane saves Rochester from an eerie fire, she begins to suspect that there are many mysteries behind the walls of Thornfield Hall. Her fears are confirmed when Rochester's secret past is revealed, destroying her chance for happiness, and forcing Jane to flee Thornfield. Penniless and hungry, she finds shelter and friendship in the shape of a kind clergyman and his family. But she is soon shocked to uncover the deeply hidden truth of her own past. This lavish and sensual new version of Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel is modern and moody, timeless and romantic. Starring Toby Stephens as Mr. Rochester, Ruth Wilson as Jane, and Francesca Annis as Lady Ingram.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
320 of 333 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Nearly Flawless New Version Of "Jane Eyre"--Real Romance And Genuine Intrigue For the "Masterpiece Theater" Set
February 25, 2007
Format:DVD
"Masterpiece Theater" has long been a benchmark in bringing quality British TV to American viewers. With a prestigious history, some legendary programs--including "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "I, Claudius"--have found acclaim, awards, and international audiences. Of late, "Masterpiece Theater" has been showcasing some ambitious literary adaptations with mixed results. Last season's high point, and a must for any lover of film, was the flawless adaptation of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House." A triumph in every regard, and featuring Emmy nominated turns by Charles Dance and Gillian Anderson, this program should be essential viewing for those that value literate, classy and wildly entertaining TV. This season's offerings have included "To The Ends Of The Earth" (an adaptation of William Golding's seafaring trilogy--'Rites Of Passage,' 'Close Quarters' and 'Fire Down Below'), a robust new version of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," a reimagining of Bram Stoker's "Dracula," and the swan song of Helen Mirren's Jane Tennison in "Prime Suspect 7."
What can one say about "Jane Eyre" that hasn't been said before? Being familiar with the novel and countless prior adaptations, I'll admit that I wasn't all that excited to revisit what I consider to be a very familiar tale. However, I diligently sat down to watch the latest 2 part "Masterpiece Theater" production. And, boy, am I ever glad that I did. While there are some liberties taken with the source material, that's to be expected. Anyone who envisions every adaptation of a novel to be a literal translation is denying the power of the film medium to create new and enduring art. In fact, it often annoys me when people carp on how something is different in lieu of accepting the merits of the interpretation. This "Jane Eyre" succeeds so well due to the credible romantic relationship, the intelligent screenplay, and the genuinely haunting quality of the central mystery.
While this version breezes past Jane's difficult childhood, it effectively settles into the heart of the story--when Jane takes a position at Thornfield Hall. Jane becomes fascinated by her new employer, Mr. Rochester. The two interact believably, and as Jane gets past Rochester's gruff exterior and erratic mood swings--she starts to have feelings for the man. Part One of this miniseries details the evolving, but chaste, relationship. In addition, the mysterious goings-on at Thornfield are excellently depicted. I was riveted by everything in this first part--particularly the intelligent banter between the two leads and the underlying sense of dread that exists in the manor. Easily 5 stars, the first half of this miniseries is flawless. In Part Two, physical romance blossoms and secrets are revealed in a very satisfying way. However, as "Jane" fans know--there are still plenty of obstacles in the way of true love. As the story wanders away from Thornfield, the program loses some of its momentum and its magic. It's still a good adaptation--but when the leads are separated, it loses a bit of its spark.
In case you haven't guessed, I was thoroughly impressed by Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, as Jane and Rochester respectively. Wilson is the perfect Jane--intelligent and appealing. It's hard to imagine someone not falling in love with her, she's so sensible and caring. Stephens does a terrific job, as well. Playing the tortured Rochester, he is a trapped soul that's yearning, but unable, to escape. While referred to in the dialogue as ugly (which he's not), it is also easy to see why this man would be a challenge for and an equal to Jane. A wonderful combination, Wilson and Stephens make this "Jane Eyre" sing. Even if you've fallen in love with other versions, there is a vital romanticism that distinguishes this lovely film. KGHarris, 02/07.
What can one say about "Jane Eyre" that hasn't been said before? Being familiar with the novel and countless prior adaptations, I'll admit that I wasn't all that excited to revisit what I consider to be a very familiar tale. However, I diligently sat down to watch the latest 2 part "Masterpiece Theater" production. And, boy, am I ever glad that I did. While there are some liberties taken with the source material, that's to be expected. Anyone who envisions every adaptation of a novel to be a literal translation is denying the power of the film medium to create new and enduring art. In fact, it often annoys me when people carp on how something is different in lieu of accepting the merits of the interpretation. This "Jane Eyre" succeeds so well due to the credible romantic relationship, the intelligent screenplay, and the genuinely haunting quality of the central mystery.
While this version breezes past Jane's difficult childhood, it effectively settles into the heart of the story--when Jane takes a position at Thornfield Hall. Jane becomes fascinated by her new employer, Mr. Rochester. The two interact believably, and as Jane gets past Rochester's gruff exterior and erratic mood swings--she starts to have feelings for the man. Part One of this miniseries details the evolving, but chaste, relationship. In addition, the mysterious goings-on at Thornfield are excellently depicted. I was riveted by everything in this first part--particularly the intelligent banter between the two leads and the underlying sense of dread that exists in the manor. Easily 5 stars, the first half of this miniseries is flawless. In Part Two, physical romance blossoms and secrets are revealed in a very satisfying way. However, as "Jane" fans know--there are still plenty of obstacles in the way of true love. As the story wanders away from Thornfield, the program loses some of its momentum and its magic. It's still a good adaptation--but when the leads are separated, it loses a bit of its spark.
In case you haven't guessed, I was thoroughly impressed by Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens, as Jane and Rochester respectively. Wilson is the perfect Jane--intelligent and appealing. It's hard to imagine someone not falling in love with her, she's so sensible and caring. Stephens does a terrific job, as well. Playing the tortured Rochester, he is a trapped soul that's yearning, but unable, to escape. While referred to in the dialogue as ugly (which he's not), it is also easy to see why this man would be a challenge for and an equal to Jane. A wonderful combination, Wilson and Stephens make this "Jane Eyre" sing. Even if you've fallen in love with other versions, there is a vital romanticism that distinguishes this lovely film. KGHarris, 02/07.
176 of 186 people found the following review helpful
By TravelMod
Format:DVD
For me the Timothy Dalton version could not have been bested, but I was wrong. The Dalton version,so faithful to the original novel is still excellent, though on re-viewing seems locked indoors and low-budget.
The Dalton version gave the story about 6 hours, with a substantial amount of time spent on Jane's childhood at the horrible boarding school.
Again, this was straight from the novel, but, let's face it, for those of us who know the story, we're waiting for her to grow up and meet Mr. Rochester.
Now, on to the current version. The story remains a great mixture of seething passion, frustrated hopes on both sides, and the struggle within one heroine between steely, virtuous, self-reliance, and a simple desire to be loved. Toby Stevens is younger than the hero is often portrayed, but still looks as if he's seen the world and fought against the unhappiness and cynicism that years of dissipated living can bring. He is handsome, but not pretty. Ruth Wilson's Jane is written as chaste but not priggish, lonely but eager to love, and, most especially, strong and independent, but in no way inappropriately feminist for the 19th century of the setting. If anything she's a bit more physically passionate than we've seen before, but it does make her seem more real.
The budget is high and it shows--lots of gorgeous outdoor scenes, beautiful period interiors , sumptuous gowns. Here and there there are some breaches of Victorian etiquette that don't ring quite true, and there are of course some deletions and skimping on some of the story lines,particularly with the Rivers family. However, I think once the decision was made to have this fit into 4 hours, the plot choices they made were mostly good ones. There is great chemistry between the two principals and most importantly, they seem entirely believable and at home in the period of the story. Spoiler warning: the final scene struck me as little too Hollywoody and 'sunny' for what is essentially
a Gothic-style dark novel (madwoman in the attic and all) but at least it is nicely romantic.
The Dalton version gave the story about 6 hours, with a substantial amount of time spent on Jane's childhood at the horrible boarding school.
Again, this was straight from the novel, but, let's face it, for those of us who know the story, we're waiting for her to grow up and meet Mr. Rochester.
Now, on to the current version. The story remains a great mixture of seething passion, frustrated hopes on both sides, and the struggle within one heroine between steely, virtuous, self-reliance, and a simple desire to be loved. Toby Stevens is younger than the hero is often portrayed, but still looks as if he's seen the world and fought against the unhappiness and cynicism that years of dissipated living can bring. He is handsome, but not pretty. Ruth Wilson's Jane is written as chaste but not priggish, lonely but eager to love, and, most especially, strong and independent, but in no way inappropriately feminist for the 19th century of the setting. If anything she's a bit more physically passionate than we've seen before, but it does make her seem more real.
The budget is high and it shows--lots of gorgeous outdoor scenes, beautiful period interiors , sumptuous gowns. Here and there there are some breaches of Victorian etiquette that don't ring quite true, and there are of course some deletions and skimping on some of the story lines,particularly with the Rivers family. However, I think once the decision was made to have this fit into 4 hours, the plot choices they made were mostly good ones. There is great chemistry between the two principals and most importantly, they seem entirely believable and at home in the period of the story. Spoiler warning: the final scene struck me as little too Hollywoody and 'sunny' for what is essentially
a Gothic-style dark novel (madwoman in the attic and all) but at least it is nicely romantic.
150 of 172 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
I thouroughly enjoyed this production on PBS. As I was poking around on Amazon to see what others thought, I noticed a few negative reviews. These negative reviews, it seems to me, can be grouped generally under one heading: So-and-so in the movie wasn't true to so-and-so in the book.
So this weekend, after seeing the production for the second time, I reread the book (I had read it in high school, but not at the level of attention it deserved). So as I read, I kept in mind the question: Is this movie version true to the book? So here are my observations:
First, Wilson and Stephens do, generally speaking, seem to match the physical descriptions of Jane and Rochester. Rochester, if memory serves, is most often described as broad-chested, with a large forehead, and stern mouth (among other things). It seemed to me that Toby Stephens fit this description within reason. Ruth Wilson also seemed to fit well as Jane. So when I was reading the book, I never had a red flag go up--in other words, at no time reading the book did I feel as though either Toby Stephens or Ruth Wilson made a counterfeit Rochester or Jane.
Some reviewers said that Stephens wasn't brooding enough. However, if you read the book, especially during Jane's first few months at Thornfield, you find Rochester to be moody, yet never missing an opportunity to keep Jane off balance, playing devil's advocate with her, and generally enjoying a good verbal sparring match that includes, yes, a spirit of playfulness. And so in this respect, I thought that Stephens captured this element of Rochester's character with great skill. You could really see that although Rochester's sprits are lifted by Jane's presence, he soon remembers the chains that bind him. So to me, Stephens successfully captured the complexity and depth of Rochester's character.
Other reviewers complained about the dialogue being dumbed down. However, as I read the book, it struck me that in some very important scenes (e.g. when Eliza gives Georgiana a verbal clobbering) the dialogue seems to match the text of the book almost verbatim.
Still others complained of Jane's relationship with God as not being prominent enough in this production. As I read the book, I noticed references to God more toward the end (more after her encounter with St. John). At the end of the book, Jane's thoughts dwell more on the spiritual, but it seemed to me that for most of the book, allusions to Providence and such were present, but not exactly what I would describe as being in the forefront.
So I loved this production. The only improvement I would have asked for is this: that the events from after the failed wedding to Jane's travels to Moor House should have perhaps been rendered in chronological order. That having been said however, I must admit that having the post-wedding scenes between Rochester and Jane as flashbacks made for some quite powerful viewing. Also, this struck me as being true to the book because in the book Jane is constantly thinking of Rochester while at Moor House. In a text format, as author Bronte could say that Jane is thinking of Rochester while other action is taking place, but how do you depict that on screen? So after thinking about it a little, I began to see the wisdom in doing things that way because it kept the movie from straying too far from home while showing Jane's continued devotion to Rochester. A nice way to adapt that part of the story to the visual medium--although I didn't like it at first.
The areas in which I did notice the production deviating from the book was in the locations of things. For instance, in the book, when Jane hears Rochester calling her, she's in the drawing room with St. John, but in the movie she's outside. Also, in the book when she finds out about what happened to Rochester, she's at an inn, but in the movie, Jane is outside in a field adjacent to Thornfield Hall. So there were a few differences there.
Bronte's writing is so rich and loaded with emotion. Consider for a moment the depth of the writing when Bronte describes Jane's inner struggles (e.g. when she is on her way out of Thornfied Hall after the failed wedding). The folks who make movies have to figure out ways to bring this to life in a visual medium. That's a challenge, to say the least. The person writing the screenplay, I suppose, has to deal with that more than anybody. So to me, this production was really well done. They did a wonderful job of bringing this story to life from a literary format (text) to a visual format.
Addendum:
Some folks have complained that Jane would not have kissed Rochester after the failed wedding. So I went back and looked at the book again, and it's true--in the book, Jane resists Rochester's physical affections on moral grounds, noting that he is, after all, married. So in the movie, when Jane is at Moor House and has the flashbacks to the scenes from after the failed wedding (where there is much smooching), I agree that those scenes aren't exactly true to the book.
After watching many clips of the other movie versions of Jane Eyre, I must say that no other version comes close to this one as far as the expressiveness of the actors. The acting in this movie is of the highest caliber. Wilson, for instance, has been nominated for a BAFTA and a Golden Globe, and deservedly so.
So this weekend, after seeing the production for the second time, I reread the book (I had read it in high school, but not at the level of attention it deserved). So as I read, I kept in mind the question: Is this movie version true to the book? So here are my observations:
First, Wilson and Stephens do, generally speaking, seem to match the physical descriptions of Jane and Rochester. Rochester, if memory serves, is most often described as broad-chested, with a large forehead, and stern mouth (among other things). It seemed to me that Toby Stephens fit this description within reason. Ruth Wilson also seemed to fit well as Jane. So when I was reading the book, I never had a red flag go up--in other words, at no time reading the book did I feel as though either Toby Stephens or Ruth Wilson made a counterfeit Rochester or Jane.
Some reviewers said that Stephens wasn't brooding enough. However, if you read the book, especially during Jane's first few months at Thornfield, you find Rochester to be moody, yet never missing an opportunity to keep Jane off balance, playing devil's advocate with her, and generally enjoying a good verbal sparring match that includes, yes, a spirit of playfulness. And so in this respect, I thought that Stephens captured this element of Rochester's character with great skill. You could really see that although Rochester's sprits are lifted by Jane's presence, he soon remembers the chains that bind him. So to me, Stephens successfully captured the complexity and depth of Rochester's character.
Other reviewers complained about the dialogue being dumbed down. However, as I read the book, it struck me that in some very important scenes (e.g. when Eliza gives Georgiana a verbal clobbering) the dialogue seems to match the text of the book almost verbatim.
Still others complained of Jane's relationship with God as not being prominent enough in this production. As I read the book, I noticed references to God more toward the end (more after her encounter with St. John). At the end of the book, Jane's thoughts dwell more on the spiritual, but it seemed to me that for most of the book, allusions to Providence and such were present, but not exactly what I would describe as being in the forefront.
So I loved this production. The only improvement I would have asked for is this: that the events from after the failed wedding to Jane's travels to Moor House should have perhaps been rendered in chronological order. That having been said however, I must admit that having the post-wedding scenes between Rochester and Jane as flashbacks made for some quite powerful viewing. Also, this struck me as being true to the book because in the book Jane is constantly thinking of Rochester while at Moor House. In a text format, as author Bronte could say that Jane is thinking of Rochester while other action is taking place, but how do you depict that on screen? So after thinking about it a little, I began to see the wisdom in doing things that way because it kept the movie from straying too far from home while showing Jane's continued devotion to Rochester. A nice way to adapt that part of the story to the visual medium--although I didn't like it at first.
The areas in which I did notice the production deviating from the book was in the locations of things. For instance, in the book, when Jane hears Rochester calling her, she's in the drawing room with St. John, but in the movie she's outside. Also, in the book when she finds out about what happened to Rochester, she's at an inn, but in the movie, Jane is outside in a field adjacent to Thornfield Hall. So there were a few differences there.
Bronte's writing is so rich and loaded with emotion. Consider for a moment the depth of the writing when Bronte describes Jane's inner struggles (e.g. when she is on her way out of Thornfied Hall after the failed wedding). The folks who make movies have to figure out ways to bring this to life in a visual medium. That's a challenge, to say the least. The person writing the screenplay, I suppose, has to deal with that more than anybody. So to me, this production was really well done. They did a wonderful job of bringing this story to life from a literary format (text) to a visual format.
Addendum:
Some folks have complained that Jane would not have kissed Rochester after the failed wedding. So I went back and looked at the book again, and it's true--in the book, Jane resists Rochester's physical affections on moral grounds, noting that he is, after all, married. So in the movie, when Jane is at Moor House and has the flashbacks to the scenes from after the failed wedding (where there is much smooching), I agree that those scenes aren't exactly true to the book.
After watching many clips of the other movie versions of Jane Eyre, I must say that no other version comes close to this one as far as the expressiveness of the actors. The acting in this movie is of the highest caliber. Wilson, for instance, has been nominated for a BAFTA and a Golden Globe, and deservedly so.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
"All is changed about me, sir; I must change too..."
After recently reading "Jane Eyre" for the first time (and loving it!), I went searching for a movie or mini series to further bring the story to life. Read more
Published 3 days ago by J. Elliot
4.0 out of 5 stars
My favorite film version of Jane Eyre so far!
Why keep checking it out of the library? Just get it. Then you can watch the deliciously complicated Rochester and the beautifully strong and vulnerable plain Jane as often as you... Read more
Published 4 days ago by beth chun
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best Jane Eyre version ever.
I love the book, so I've pretty much gone out of my way to see every version of Jane Eyre there is. Trust me, there are some really wretched versions (especially the newest). Read more
Published 7 days ago by Susannah
2.0 out of 5 stars
2 1/2 Stars: The Weakest "Jane Eyre" Miniseries To Date
First off, I didn't read the book until last year. To date I have seen 6 other "Jane Eyre" adaptions (4 movies & 2 miniseries). Read more
Published 24 days ago by A_Plain_Janeite
5.0 out of 5 stars
Masterpiece Theatre Jane Eyre
One of my favorite stories - I had not seen this version and thought it was very well done. A couple scenes I would have preferred left out regarding a fortune teller and Quiji... Read more
Published 29 days ago by Janette Lager
2.0 out of 5 stars
Pretentious Rochester
I not only did not care for the surrealistic desert-scene beginning for this production, but also found Rochester far too aggressive and self-serving right away. Read more
Published 1 month ago by petronmb
5.0 out of 5 stars
Masterpiece indeed Toby is outstanding.......
Received my DVD on time in great condition.Very pleased.I watch so many times and still is like I just saw for the first time.
Great piece of British classics. Read more
Great piece of British classics. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Madalina
1.0 out of 5 stars
wish had read the dissenters before buying!
i generally read reviews along the spectrum, especially the rock-bottom reviews on a nearly perfectly-rated production. in this case, i did not and regret it entirely. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Zinziber Tea
5.0 out of 5 stars
this is my favorite production of Jane Eyer
This is my favorite production of Jane Eyer it is the closet to the book that I really enjoy this production.
Published 2 months ago by carol baker
5.0 out of 5 stars
Better than the book!
This is my second copy of this version. I find that when I start watching, I can't stop. The characters are played perfectly by Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Rebecca Arseneaux
