Boobirt Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

jjnxn-1 There is a lot wrong with this version of the classic tale. First and foremost the compressing of the story into two hours, the original and best version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon only told a fraction of the book and it was of equal length, makes everything feel rushed and motivations fuzzy. Almost as damaging is the miscasting of Robert Cavanah in the lead. Heathcliff is a complex, difficult, mostly unlikable character which requires an actor of great personal magnetism to bridge that gap for the audience, Cavanah is not that guy. He just seems cruel, insane and totally unsympathetic. Orla Brady is a bland Cathy making Heathcliffs mad devotion all the more puzzling. Another sore spot, no one ages! Once the main characters reach maturity their looks never change even though decades pass. The one bright spot is Matthew MacFayden whose performance is controlled and centered unfortunately his part is small and comes late in the proceedings so he can do little to rescue this woeful effort. Watch the 1939 version instead.

marspeach I don't know if this really contains spoilers, but I marked it just in case.I expected a lot from this movie. I knew it was made-for-TV and had low production values but that didn't bother me. I thought it was too fast-paced and it had some terrible casting. Why were Heathcliff and Cathy, who looked to be at least in their thirties, running around the moors like little kids? They're not supposed to be grown up when they do that! They meet the Lintons when they're 12 years old! I've yet to see a version which actually portrays them as kids for that scene, but this one was the worst because they look so darn old! Cathy is supposed to be, what, 20 or so when she dies? Orla Brady was 37! Heathcliff was even older, which was fine for the later scenes but couldn't they have even tried to age him down with makeup?? Also, Nelly was supposed to be Hindley's age, yet she was in her fifties for the whole movie!!! I'm not a purist by any means but things like this make it hard to take a film seriously. It was alright, but again, way too fast-moving. An average movie.

didi-5 Unjustly slated on its original TV broadcast 7 years ago, this adaptation of Emily Bronte's classic Gothic romance of the Yorkshire moors has something of an Irish feel (thanks to the casting of Orla Brady as a spunky Catherine, and Robert Cavanah as a brooding and menacing Heathcliff).This Heathcliff is not the romantic hero we saw in the Olivier-Oberon version in the 1930s; he's bitter, tiresome, grotesque, unsympathetic, and yet his great love for Cathy shines through.Matching the novel pretty much chapter for chapter, this version does more with the last third of the book that most other attempts have - the understanding between Hareton and Catherine comes through much more strongly. It also muddies the waters slightly with respect to the conflict between Heathcliff and Hindley - although we can see why Heathcliff acts as he does, this version doesn't necessarily excuse him.This Wuthering Heights is uncompromising, dark, and violent. This possibly contributed to its fate at the time, as the acting is largely fine (including Ken Kitson as Mr Earnshaw, Ian Shaw as Hindley, Matthew MacFadyen as Hareton, Tom Georgeson as Joseph, and Polly Hemingway as Nellie). It represents a decent attempt to get Emily Bronte's vision on film - it doesn't work, but it comes very close.

jack-smales Emily Bronte would have been proud of this version of Wuthering Heights.While it is rather rushed,it makes up for it by sticking to the nature of the story.It still bears resemblance to the book. Orla Brady was a superb Cathy.She looked and acted just the way she should.Robert Cavangh did not really look like a good Heathcliff,but his acting was good and I suppose that is what mattered.POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEADThe part where Cathy and Heathcliff were children was rushed.They were still children when Cathy stayed at the Lintons and so were Edgar and Isabella,but here they were all adults.Also Nelly was an adult all through the film,but she was supposed to be a child.I think what they should have done was have 2 young actors for Cathy,Nelly and Heathcliff and young actors for Edgar and Isabella.I also think that the Christmas bit was not how it should have been.Anyway,this is a very accurate version and sticks to the nature of the story.I think if it did not it would have been awful. This is a superb version.