Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Katherina_Minola I can see why some fans of the book did not enjoy this adaptation - it does contain some changes, but I still thout that it captured the story in the main very well (and stayed faithful to the spirit of the book, if not the letter).Tom Hardy was excellent as Heathcliff – it was easy to see how someone could fall in love with him as a young man, before loss and ill-treatment by other members of the family caused him to turn bitter and angry. He was charming and likable, but he was also entirely believable as an older Heathcliff, determined to make Cathy's family suffer for the misery they had visited upon him.Charlotte Riley was lovely as Cathy – a beautiful young girl with a promising future, but who seemed destined for one path in life despite wanting to choose another. The chemistry between the two main characters was easy to see (and it's no surprise to learn that after meeting on this production, they became a couple in real life).Support was provided by Sarah Lancashire, who was excellent as Nelly, Cathy's maid (and subsequently the maid to Cathy's daughter Catherine). Lancashire is a really amazing actress, who always brings her roles to life, and she made a big impact in this show. Additionally, Andrew Lincoln plays Edgar, who becomes Cathy's husband, but never the true love of her life. He is an actor who I sometimes find quite wooden, but he was very good here. Burn Gorman played Hindley, the brother of Cathy who always resented Heathcliff's intrusion in their lives, and he was superb. He totally encapsulated the cruel and spiteful nature of the character, and made me dislike him intensely.The whole production is very atmospheric – which I think is very important in any telling of this tale – and the Yorkshire moors where the story is set is portrayed beautifully. There is plenty of emotion – love, happiness, anger, shock, grief – and it all makes for a very moving and enjoyable production. And it made me cry!If you're a fan of the book (or even if you're not), and haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend that you watch it.

woinaroschy_1979 I've seen the '39, '92 and another TV series of Wuthering Heights. Each has it's qualities and flaws. When I watched the 2009 version for the first time, I was very pleasantly surprised that it was a very modern take on the situation between the characters. Heathcliff and Cathy were childhood sweethearts, with all that it entails, sex too. The relationship between Hetahcliff and Isabella Linton is also well pictured, even though the idea that Heathcliff tried to love Isabella (as he says) is really not at all in the book, nor characteristic of Heathcliff. Cathy is a very modern woman, who marries a man for his money and the comfort that it brings (at least that's the message I got, I never saw Cathy's love for Edgar), but loves and above all, desires, the rough, tough and wild bad boy Heathcliff. Actyually, Heathcliff is the one here that won't sleep with her later on, because she's married and she has slept with Edgar, thus betraying him. In the end, the story depicted becomes much too modern for my taste...it's going too far away from the book. Everything is too simple and superficial, the story is about a woman that made a bad choice and married the wrong man, and dies of heartbreak because of this, leaving the 2 guys to mourn for her. Heathcliff is upset of her betrayal and punishes her in his way, while also taking revenge on those that wronged him, but his character is a lamb compared to the devil Heathcliff is in the book. Cathy is also very different from the book, where she was strong, almost a tyrant with Heathcliff and Edgar, feared and loved. Here she's a teenage girl who doesn't know exactly what to do, is prone to her emotions, and at the mercy of Heathcliff and his whims. The series itself is not bad at all, acting, scenery, directing, and music are very good...but it's not a faithful adaptation of Wuthering Heights, more of a a "based on" thing. It's a "what if" kind of story (what if Heathcliff was in fact not that bad? what if Cathy was not that strong?). Kind of a good fan fiction... So, interesting to watch, probably won't be liked by the fans of the book.

drarthurwells The original 1939 classic movie of Wuthering Heights, with Olivier and Oberon, is excellent for its time. However, this version only depicts the basic plot. Newer versions are more elaborate.This story centers on Heathcliff and is about deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy, love lost, Heathcliff's bitter and deep anger over this, Heathcliff's blame for the love loss on the Cathy as well as on class exclusion, and revenge toward all those involved in the lost love. An essential element is for the movie to depict Heathcliff's bitterness and immense vengeful anger. Now in order for the immense anger to be explained, the prior deep love between Heathcliff and Cathy must be fully depicted. I think the 1992 and 2009 movie versions are the best. Both are excellent but both are flawed.The 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes is better organized and time-sequenced. This version emphasizes the bitterness, anger and vengefulness of the main character, Heathcliff, as superbly depicted by Fiennes. The flaw is that the early love between Cathy and Heathcliff is shown in a skimpy and summary manner. This is a flaw since this deep love needs a full and detailed portrayal in order to explain Heathcliff's later deep bitterness. As a result Fiennes' Heathcliff is a terrible fellow whose behavior is somewhat inexcusable. The 2009 version with Tom Hardy is slightly convoluted, and lightens Heathcliff's vengefulness (making Heathcliff more of sympathetic character to the viewer), which is a flaw compared to the 1992 Fiennes version that properly displays Heathcliff's revenge. However, the 2009 Hardy version does portray the early love between Heathcliff and Cathy with due elaboration (which is lacking in the 1992 version). As a result Heathcliff is more of a tragic figure than a villain.An ideal version would be the 1992 Fiennes version, with the deep vengeful anger as Fiennes displayed, but that also fully depicted the love as did the 2009 Hardy version.Both the Hardy 2009 version and the Fiennes 1992 version are excellent but I prefer the 1992 version as the best available.

TheLittleSongbird True, it doesn't always follow the overall structure of the novel by Emily Bronte, and there are one or two slow moments. But it is beautifully done, and does a competent job of adapting a truly complicated book to screen. I don't think it is the best adaptation of the book, but it definitely not the worst. The adaptation was lovingly designed with stunning locations and exquisite costumes, and the photography was excellent. The performances were excellent, the two leads Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley were both superb as Heathcliff and Cathy, and Andrew Lincoln and Sarah Lancashire give able support. The scriptwriter Peter Bowker, who wrote the script for the wonderful BBC drama Occupation, does a good job with the dialogue, which was in general well written and well crafted. All in all, as an adaptation it is beautifully done, not always faithful to the novel, but the performances and the visual design compensates. 8/10 Bethany Cox