Wuthering Heights (1998 TV Movie) User Reviews

Disappointed

[marspeach · 6/10 · 5 July 2006]

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.

Gritty and Uncomfortable

[rmgentile · 7/10 · 2 February 2020]

This is probably the best film adaptation of Wuthering Heights to date (22 years later). Great photography, not too many words, and tons of emotion. Reviewing a subsequent production, Roger Ebert said something like "Wuthering Heights is every woman's favorite." In this version you don't necessarily see Catherie and Heathcliffe's relationship as a healthy one - at least I didn't. I didn't yearn to see them together. Maybe that's a failure on the part of casting, but although the acting was fine, I did not find their chemistry to be romantic. In this version, the sad failing of each character is at the fore and Heathcliffe's revenge feels eternal. Sure he was abused, but he has not turned out to be a good guy, to the point where someone should make a film describing how Heathcliffe came into his fortune while offscreen.

So why is this the best version? It has the right balance of grit, weather, nature, passion, and human pain. The photography is great and the production values make it on a level with the best current Masterpiece Theatre stuff, even 20 years later. Granted it's painful to watch, and I can't call it completely entertaining. The nurse, Nelly, becomes a kind of touchstone character - the only one anybody is ever glad to see for most of the film, including Heathcliffe. They had to keep him offscreen and just show her face when he approaches her after returning to visit Thrushcross Grange a rich man. You only hear his voice which harbors a touch of delighted love say, "Nelly!" as her face changes from recognition to a kind of dismay.

Weak version of a great book

[jjnxn-1 · 5/10 · 5 May 2013]

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.

ALMOST the book, and certainly a very good adaptation

[DrLenera · 19 August 2004]

Out of the four versions of Wuthering Heights available on DVD {1939, 1971 and 1992 being the others}, this is the closest to the book. It's far from being a perfect adaptation, the definitive version is still to come. Of course the 1939 version is artistically far superior to any of the others, but it's the least faithful adaptation. Both this version and the 1971 version stopped virtually half way through the story. The 1993 one did attempt to tell the whole story, but was somewhat stuffy and lacking in the intense emotion required. This TV movie, shown in two parts, is far more successful in telling the whole story, and certainly does not lack for emotion.

There are a few changes {maybe one day we will be able to see Heathcliff and Cathy first meet the Lintons as children rather than adults} and the first part of the story is rushed. There is the odd unnecessary touch, such as seeing Heathcliff semi-rape his wife. Generally,though,it's pretty faithful, does most of the great scenes in the book well and even adds a few details from the book that were not in the other mentioned versions at at all, such as Heathcliff tying up Isabelle's dog, or Heathcliff throwing a knife at her. Orla Brady is as close to the Cathy from the book as one can get, and while Robert Cavanagh is visually not an ideal Heathcliff, he really shows the evil of the character like few others.

Despite all this, this modestly produced version still manages to have a great deal of the required emotion, and despite Heathcliff's nastiness the filmmakers still manage to make one almost feel his pain and torment. The ending is beautifully done, aided by some very John Barry-like music.

It's not the perfect adaptation, but it will certainly do. However, a message for the next person to film Wuthering Heights- make it a lot LONGER!

The Book in Comparison

[howlah · 6/10 · 17 September 2007]

**ONLY LAST 2 SENTENCES SPOIL** OK, to start with I thought this was very well cast in terms of the way they look~ pretty much like I imagined (though not the best acting at points~ perhaps because the actors probably didn't actually read the book).. well apart from Heathcliff; which is only to be expected, as he is such a controversial character.

I also wanted Joseph a bit less clean-cut than he was in the film.

I thought Heathcliff should've been played by a non-Caucasian instead of a Cavanah with heavy bronzer. However he looks wild enough, just not attractive enough for me... Haerton WAS hot, which was what I wanted, and his troll-deep voice was suiting and funny at times as it was so fitting whether intentional or not.

They only had 2 actors for Heathcliff, Catherine, and Hindley, and 1 for Edgar, Isabella and Nelly. This was tolerable for Hindley, Nelly, Edgar and Isabella, because Nelly's in her later years and their looks usually don't change, Hindley disappears for college to return older, and Flora and Crispin look young enough to pass off as teens. The adult actors for Heathcliff and Catherine were just a little too old to come in the bird nest scene.

Now the pace: This film starts a little boring.. but it does get a lot better. But if you have read the book, you will find the movie is slow-moving in some places but flies past some parts a bit too fast. I wish they had just kept the same pace.

If setting is important to you, you won't be disappointed.

The relationships between the characters were pretty well portrayed, for example Catherine-Heathcliff was quite sweet. The rating 6.7 is pretty dead on.

**Spoiler below** What I didn't like was Haerton and Cathy's relationship. Cathy was just a bit too quick to get into it. (/spoiler)

The best version I've seen yet

[violetta1485 · 10/10 · 7 August 2006]

Yes, Brady and Cavanagh are too old for the childhood scenes, but no version has ever cast real twelve-year-old for those parts (The Calder-Marshall/Dalton one skipped to the adult actors ASAP and so did the Binoche/Fiennes one, if you'll recall), and I'll be very surprised if one ever does. The crucial dramatic scenes are from ages 12-16, which means you'd have to cast two or more actors for each role (Cicely Tyson could age 10-110 believably, but most actors can't) if you want to show the changes of adolescence. Most name actors wouldn't tolerate just playing the scenes post-marriage to Edgar, and leaving the meatier adolescent scenes to child actors. And frankly, most younger actors couldn't handle the dramatic weight of those scenes--possibly a young Kirsten Dunst could have carried the role of teen Cathy, maybe River Phoenix teen Heathcliff, but what about those accents? Now this may change someday: just as real teens were once thought unable to play Romeo and Juliet and since the Zeffirelli version casting young has become the norm, there may come a production that changes our view of WH forever and we will be unable to imagine non-teen actors playing those scenes.

That said, however, this version captured the characters as written better than any I have ever seen. Heathcliff was not romantically sugar-coated to make him less ruthless and vengeful than he is, Edgar for once is not portrayed as a wussy little weakling but just an ordinary, civilized guy who doesn't have a clue what a messed-up situation he's getting into with these local savages. Maybe Cathy 2 is a little more sympathetic than she was in the book (she starts out pretty shallow and class-conscious there), but Cathy 1 is as hysterical, self-destructive, and borderline as Bronte meant her to be, and her ill-fated decision to marry Edgar is clearly not just social-climbing or (as she says) an attempt to get power to help Heathcliff, but a misguided notion that if she surrounds herself with comparatively normal people like the Lintons, she'll stop being the permanently-damaged product of a family "dysfunctional" doesn't even begin to describe. Maybe Nelly's a little whitewashed: in the book she meddles when she ought to leave things alone and leaves them alone when she ought to take action, but the actress does a good job as the one rational person following the progress of this Dysfunctional Family Tree. Kudos to all the actors, and to the scriptwriters for not making the Lintons the villains so we can have more sympathy for Cathy and Heathcliff. The Lintons have the values of their time and class, but they don't deserve to be #$%^ed over as horribly as they are just because they're too prosaic to understand Cathy and Heathcliff's supernatural bond.

I loved the scene with the cave--where a young Cathy gets a glimpse of the man Heathcliff will grow to be, and the dying Heathcliff repeats the vision at the end. Even though it wasn't in the book, it captures the eerie sense that there was something extraordinary going on behind those ordinary events of bad marriages and class conflict, something supernatural and fated.

BTW, this is the first version I've seen where all the principals actually have Yorkshire accents. Maybe the Lintons wouldn't, since they have London connections and Joseph even claims he can't understand Isabella's dialect, but Heathcliff, Cathy, and Hindley would all have them, not just the servants like Joseph. This is before mass communication, and they wouldn't have heard many non-local people speaking, the way city-kids from Leeds or Liverpool might. Even today when everybody has TV and radio, the accent in Haworth is very strong, so even though they toned it down for the sake of comprehension, at least they sounded like they grew up in North Country and not in a classroom at RADA.

Lead Actors Too Old

[OpenID · 3/10 · 17 May 2010]

The storyline sticks pretty much to the book but the lead actors are all way too old and consequently appear ridiculous in some of the scenes. Heathcliff and Cathy are supposed to be young - as young as 12 years old when they go out at night to the Lintons and peek into their house. It looks laughable to see these middle aged actors out at play in the night. The Linton "children" are equally too old - a silly squabble between two grown adults plays all wrong.

Orla Brady must have been close to 40 years old at the time she played Cathy. Daft! The actor playing Heathcliff looks equally out of place running around the moors at his age. Didn't anyone read the book before they cast the production?

The miscasting of way too old actors in the leads destroyed this production for me.

A great adaptation a novel that was ahead of its time

[LittleSwallow · 8/10 · 19 August 2005]

I find that this 1998 Masterpiece theater TV version follows the novel of the same name pretty faithfully. One who has never read the novel may find the action moving too quickly, so that the flow of the movie may seem slightly abrupt or choppy. However, the movie is only 2 hours long, which is probably why they had to cut out parts of the book and take some liberties with ages and certain details. That does not detract too much from the enjoyment of this movie, which despite its choppiness, has excellent acting, beautiful cinematography (the landscapes are breathtaking), and a wonderfully wrought out, bitter plot which focuses on three generations of two families who are intimately interlocked with each other. Heathcliff definitely comes off as the cruel, embittered man he is in the book, and it's great to see a TV movie capture the personalities of all the characters so well. Highly recommended movie.

A dull disappointment

[vanyadolly · 3/10 · 6 April 2018]

I haven't seen every Wutherign Heigths adaption, but I have seen a lot of them and this one is at the bottom of my list for now. What do you get when you strip a gothic novel of all of all of its mystery and ethereal romanticism? Turns out that the result is a rather tame and uninspiring drama. Ironically this one just comes across as more melodramatic without the proper framework to soften the heightened emotionality and the flowery language, especially as they're acted out by out by actors in their forties. The result was downright hilarious at times when it wasn't plain distracting.

There was nothing about this adaption that said Wuthering Heights to me, it could have been any old movie. It has none of the complexity or atmosphere of the book, and on top of that they saw fit to rewrite the characters to a point where they have little in common with their original counterparts.

Adaptions seem to have a hard time finding a good balance between Cathy and Heathcliff to make them feel like two halves of the same soul rather than allowing one to overpower the other; whether that's reducing Cathy to the innocent victim of Heathcliff's abuse (2009 mini-series) or making Heathcliff childish and downright pathetic (this movie).

I haven't been able to find a perfect film adaption yet, but I wouldn't recommend this one. If you love the book or if you're looking for an adaption that captures it's spirit, I'd recommend the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton for the first generation, or the 1992 version with Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche. Even the 2009 mini-series with Tom Hardy did a better job with the supporting characters.

almost totally faithful to the book

[didi-5 · 8/10 · 7 August 2005]

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.

Abominable

[GenevieveBowie · 2/10 · 21 May 2007]

As a big fan of wuthering heights, i was ready to give this film a chance. But i have to say, i hated it. Robert cavanah is not right for heathcliff. More importantly, this film does not follow the book. it kills the book in fact, and changes the plot. Cathy and hieroglyphs loveis more sexual in the film than in the book, and shows lust rather thanlove. i was very upset with this adaptation. as a stand alone film it would have been good, but as a novel adaptation - a very poor interpretation. The 1992 wuthering heights with Ralph fiennes however is an amazing film. it is very true to the book, very emotive. i cried 3 times throughout the film. Ralph fiennes plays heathcliff exactly as i imagined him. Juliette binoche pulls Cathy and Cathy's daughter off very well. Horton is portrayed perfectly too. i recommend anyone to watch the 1992 film, and not this television version.

Glorious

[kgm3 · 8/10 · 25 February 2007]

A wonderful, faithful adaptation, the 1998 version of Wuthering Heights captures all the romance, brutality and passion of the novel. Orla Brady is stunning as Cathy and truly captures the character, particularly towards the end of the story. Robert Cavanah is also wonderful as Heathcliff, the story's complex (and challenging to play, I'm sure) antihero. The rest of the performances are emotionally charged as well, and no one seems to fall short. One of the great things about this story is how real and complex its characters are. No one is totally angelic or demonic, -good people are driven to do terrible things, and the worst of people love more passionately than all the others. It is a dark, beautiful story, filled with romance and suffering. For fans of the novel, this is the most faithful adaptation I have found, and for those of you who have not read the book, it is a beautiful, moving film.

A 'no frills" classic

[Philby-3 · 9 October 2000]

I turned this on thinking we were going to get the 1992 film version with Ralph Fiennes and Juliet Binoche; instead it was a new low key TV version made for LWT and PBS with a British cast and production crew. `Wuthering Heights' has been filmed at least 10 times in English alone, there is not so much a definite version as one for successive eras, and the various versions each tell us something about the periods in which they were made. This version is not exactly post-modern, but it lacks romantic glamour. It's still a tale of wild, hopeless love but we get more of the pain than of the rapture. We also get the full story, not the truncated tale of the 1939 Hollywood version (a fine movie of its period). Here, Heathcliff and Cathy, doomed lovers, are redeemed by the happiness of their children.

The mostly unknown cast are fine and the locations fitting, though I don't think `Wuthering Heights' itself was meant to be quite so pokey; the Earnshaws were meant to be minor gentry, not peasants. Ghosts are always difficult to film convincingly but these ones are well captured. I'd like to think people will still read the book but the reality is most will just see a film version. It's a powerful story and this is a reasonable `no frills' rendering.

Not even this one could cut it...

[hpbfan8790 · 2/10 · 6 January 2003]

I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely perplexed at all those people who claim that this is the most accurate film adaptation of Wuthering Heights. It is NOT at ALL! As a devout reader of Emily Bronte and beloved fan of the novel (I've managed to read it three times in less than a month) I can safely say that this adaptation doesn't even come close to capturing the spirit of Emily Bronte or the structure of the novel. To begin with, Nelly and Joseph's parts are drastically reduced.I mean, I was atleast expecting Nelly to narrate the damn movie. But she doesn't, in fact, she hardly appears in the movie at all. (by the by, they also chose a really old actress to play Nelly. She is supposed to be Hindley's age but instead looks 50 throughout the entire film). Robert Cavanagh delivers a decent performance as the conflicted and tormented Heathcliff. Orla Brady, however, just falls short from portraying the fiery and vivacious spirit of Catherine Earnshaw. Her defiant, mercurial, and headstrong nature that is evident in the book is not carried through in the movie. Aside from this, they also didn't put much consideration into the age continuity. In the novel, Cathy and Heathcliffe are both around 12 when they meet the Lintons. In this film, they skip 10 years altogether and introduce them as adults from the start. Other characters that were reduced included Hareton, Cathy Linton, and Linton himself. In fact, the entire second generation of characters in the film are as far removed from the context of the characters in the novel as possible. I dunno, it's just too many faults to list. All I know is that I kept grumbling and shouting "NO! that's not the way it went in the novel!" or "Hey, they said more than that!" I give credit to the director for atleast attempting to make a semi-accurate adaptation...even though he failed miserably. I'm beginning to think that Wuthering Heights really is an IMPOSSIBLE novel to film...or at least impossible to film in a way that can satisfy the true Wuthering Heights fans. Maybe if they made it into a mini-series/soap opera...

As accurate as it gets

[AngelVox · 9/10 · 30 September 1999]

This is the most accurate version of "Wuthering Heights" I have ever seen. More people have seen the 1939 version with Laurence Olivier, but this one has its own appeal: it sticks to the story. The movie itself was sometimes painful to watch, but it's a painful story, and I still couldn't turn away. Robert Cavanaugh made a perfect Heathcliff; he was loathsome, but you also took pity on him. Orla Brady was lovely as the torn heroine (if you can call her a heroine). As a side note, the music was beautiful! It made me want to cry. I would definitely recommend seeing this film, especially if you are a Brontë fan. You won't be disappointed!

Very Impressed

[marybon · 8/10 · 12 March 2007]

As someone who has created a website on Wuthering Heights so had to read and re-read it many times, paragraph by paragraph, I was very impressed by this version (ITV has not a great reputation for historical drama in the UK).

The house itself looked like a farmhouse rather than a mansion, the minor details such as hair colour were generally accurate, the acting was excellent. Somehow Orla Brady didn't feel right to me as Catherine (although she's a fine actress) but Sarah Smart was perfect as the younger Cathy.

Being two hours rather than a movie's 90 minutes allowed more of the novel to be used and I was constantly thinking "Yes, I remember that from the book". Until Andrew Davies produces the definitive 'Wuthering Heights' as he did for 'Pride and Prejudice', this is probably the best around.

A very good adaptation and even better on its own

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 2 March 2014]

Wuthering Heights is one of the literary masterpieces with complex characters(especially Heathcliff, a character that makes Mr Rochester, another tormented character, seem tame in comparison) and a truly dark, moving story that is full to the brim with atmosphere. Like the work of Charles Dickens and George Eliot as examples Wuthering Heights is one of the most difficult books to adapt and is almost unfilmable as well. Every adaptation of Wuthering Heights is worth the look though some work better than others. This was a fine version of Wuthering Heights, along with the Laurence Olivier film it is the best adaptation. True it could have done with a longer length especially for a book as lengthy and complex as Wuthering Heights, and the sections with the youngsters seemed on the rushed side(they also age a bit too quickly). It is however one of- perhaps THE- most faithful adaptation, there are omissions of course as you'd expect from a film compressed into a shorter running time but in detail and spirit with all the major details and characters intact it is to the extent that if she were alive Emily Bronte herself would recognise it. The adaptation is even better on its own, the locations are breath-taking and remarkably vivid in a way where you can literally smell and feel the atmosphere being conveyed.

The photography is not too flashy or studio-bound, it has a sense of freedom but allows the story to resonate. While the costumes are richly evocative, if you had a time machine and had travelled to this period it is very likely to be as rendered here. The music score is hauntingly beautiful and melancholic, particularly at the end and the ending here is poignant beyond words (none of the other adaptations of the book have done it as emotionally as here). The writing is very thoughtfully adapted with a great deal of intimacy and very true to Bronte's prose, and the story is still the dark, brooding and passionate tale of the book with as said already the major scenes all here and with the impact they should. The direction is strong throughout as is the acting. Not all the actors are age-appropriate but for me the performances themselves are what matter more and the adaptation delivers on that front. Robert Cavannah is a Heathcliff that is brutish and brooding yet tormented and pained, rightfully allowing us to be terrified of Heathcliff and later go on to pity him too. Orla Brady is a spirited and feisty Cathy, also very affecting, her delirium scene is beautifully played and genuinely disturbing. Matthew McFadyen's Hareton is very charming, while Crispin Bonham-Carter's Edgar is very well-read and humane in a role that can easily be weak and the Hindley of Ian Shaw is appropriately tragic, a tormenter at first but later he is almost(if not quite to that extent) as pained as Heathcliff. Polly Hemmingway and Tom Georgeson are equally engaging. Overall, one of the better Wuthering Heights adaptations and recommended. 9/10 Bethany Cox

One of the better versions

[morgana-31 · 9/10 · 15 January 2007]

I came across this on DVD last weekend. I had been looking for the mini-series I had seen on TV a good 25 years or so earlier and mistook this one for it. (I had no idea who was in the mini-series; and bad eyesight prevented me from reading the small print on the box.)

Well I had no regrets. As a hater of the half told stories of a couple of previous versions I had seen, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'll agree with everyone else that Cathy and Heathcliff aged faster than in the book and that Nelly Dean should have been younger, but that did not detract from the story.

And Heathcliff was depicted as a rogue, not a romantic hero; and Cathy was a twit. I felt no sympathy for her because she made her choice and got what she deserved.

I do wish they had done more with Cathy 2 and Linton though. Their rather grating personalities were all but lost in this version. But at least they were IN this version.

I had to watch it on a portable mini DVD player because my big telly is in for repairs, but this will be the first thing I watch when I get it back.

Every bit as disturbing and haunting as the novel!

[rishihanson · 10/10 · 7 August 2011]

Being an avid Bronte fan, especially Emily, I have seen every single adaptation of their novels. While most screen adaptations prove to be rather disgraceful, there are some "gems" which, though not equaling the original source, turn out to be masterpieces in their own right. Such is the case with this wonderful TV adaptation of Wuthering Heights. It follows as closely to the book as possible, and takes great pains to bring the characters and their world to life, and succeeds with flying colours. Robert Cavannah and Orla Brady are near perfect in their portrayal of the two star-crossed lovers Cathy and Heathcliff, and David Skynner, the director, does his best to emulate the chaotic atmosphere in which their love blossoms in the novel. But the most enjoyable part of the movie - and indeed of the novel - is the allusion to the post-Heathcliff Wuthering Heights epitomised by the union of Hareton and Catherine Linton.

This is a dark, dreary, passionate and compelling adaptation - probably the most stirring, and definitely the most faithful to the original - for it shows why we love and continue to love Emily Jane Bronte's masterpiece! I most strenuously recommend it to every Bronte fan - Victorian world doesn't get bleaker than this!

Flawed,but still a brilliant adaptation.

[jack-smales · 20 October 2003]

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 AHEAD

The 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.

Captures intensity and atmosphere of original

[mmatson10 · 10/10 · 11 June 2010]

This 1998 version of "Wuthering Heights" here depicts the emotional intensity, violence, and cruelty of the novel. Never a "sweet romance," it depicts the quite understandable actions of two "soulmates" and the destruction they wreak around them--a drama that somehow ends perfectly in another romance that promises to be as rich and soulful, if more temperate.

As Cathy, Orla Brady has the beauty, brashness, and vitality of the original, if not as much of the desire to dominate others. As Heathcliff, Robert Cavanaugh has intensity, intelligence, and physicality, if not the "otherness" of appearance that the book describes. Together, Brady and Cavanaugh show the primal need for each other that is so essential to the book.

Like all other film adaptations, this film suffers from the needs of practical aspects of film-making. The essential parts of the story happen when Cathy and Heathcliff are about ages 8-9, 12-13, and 15-16. As in most films, most of these events are played by actors much older than are credible for the events portrayed. It makes no sense for a mature Heathcliff to stay at Wuthering Heights, but it does for a boy of 12 or 13. Why would Cathy value the attentions of a wealthy neighbor? Because she is only 15 and wants to become part of the elite in a stratified society.

Maybe someday the film industry will find a way to show people growing and evolving--then one can finally have a perfect film version of "Wuthering Heights." But as it stands, the bleak, yet beautiful landscape, the characters' isolation, and the depth and complexity of each main character are admirably presented. If only the film could be longer! Melanie Matson, 6-11-10

Underrated version of a great novel

[MissSimonetta · 8/10 · 29 October 2013]

This 1998 TV version of Wuthering Heights is superb, if a touch flawed in a few fundamental areas. Novel purists will be sure to adore this one.

Robert Cavanah might be the most evil portrayal of Heathcliff I've seen yet. Oh he does have his sympathetic moments, but overall this version really plays up how despicable he is, even going so far as to having him sexually assault Isabella on their wedding night. Other highlights in the cast are Sarah Smart as the second Catherine and Matthew Macfadyen as Hareton, whose animosity evolves into the love that finally breaks Heathcliff's desire for vengeance. In fact, one of this miniseries' greatest strengths is the second generation, so rarely incorporated into WH adaptations.

My main gripe is that some areas are too, well, nice for this story. Catherine is written as a thoughtless but overall naive girl. In the book, she was downright cruel and certainly not as naive as she is painted here. Plus the thirty-something Orla Brady is much too old to be playing the character. The music is romantic, but, like the Alfred Newman score for the 1939 movie, too sweet to fit such a dark story.

Nevertheless, this is a beautiful adaptation and WH fans like myself will be sure to appreciate it.

Really good version of the book

[sanran-2 · 10/10 · 17 May 2008]

I've read the book "Wuthering Heights" many times and it's my favorite love story, so passionate and real. So I wanted to see an appropriate film version to this wonderful book. And I must admit, that this film completely catches the spirit and atmosphere of the book. I think it's very difficult to play the leading roles, especially the complicated Heathcliff's character. It's very hard not to make Heathcliff too human and otherwise not too savage. He is not a romantic hero and it's hard to show his vulnerability and passionate love for Catherine and his dark, cruel and vengeful nature at the same time. But I was pleasingly surprised. Robert Cavanah unbelievably well plays this role and the other actors are really good too. This film is really for those who love "Wuthering Heights".

Sarah Smart

[bob_yarwood · 9 September 2002]

Sarah Smart is just about the best Cathy ever, and played the same part in a modernised version of the story entitled "Sparkhouse" on BBC1 Sept 8th 2002. She looks right, sounds right, and has the right temperament for the part - wilful, wayward and fiery. She has the look of Sarah Miles - and could be her daughter!

Brilliantly faithful to the book

[john_francis_s · 10/10 · 30 December 2021]

I knew, from the opening scene that I would enjoy this film. The director has stuck faithfully to the book considering the time constraints of the cinema. Orla Brady is easily the best Cathy I've seen. She brings the full gamut of emotions, convincingly, to her character. Nellie Dean also resembles my imagery of her. This movie somehow came and went under the radar. A pity, because this is the portrayal that Emily Bronte would have imagined when she sat down to write Wuthering Heights almost two hundred years ago.