Wuthering Heights (1970) User Reviews

Flawed, but with some truly great moments

[MoneyMagnet · 6/10 · 26 May 2007]

This is a classic example of a film made with the best of intentions, where most of the people involved didn't quite have a handle on the material and wound up producing something fairly inoffensive but forgettable... EXCEPT... somehow there are shining moments.

I've seen a lot of movies and it is pretty hard to impress me; but the sequence near the end of the film where Heathcliff goes down to Cathy's grave, later to be led on up the hill by her ghost, is simply one of the most haunting fleeting moments of cinema I have ever seen. In ANY film (and I have seen very many of the greats). Yes, this was just a lowly little teen-oriented American International Picture, directed by some studio stalwart, starring some inexperienced actors who were given a not very challenging screenplay that wasn't all that true to the source material. But this brief sequence just rises above all that -- simply and brilliantly directed, unforgettably scored (by Michel Legrand), fearlessly acted by a very young Timothy Dalton.

I don't know if I can recommend the movie based just on that, flawed as the film is, but I couldn't stop thinking about that scene for days, how close it got to the human condition on a visceral yet poetic level. It's just one of those things about moments of movie magic. You never know where it will strike, even in movies that don't rank with the best. I can't say I thought this version of Wuthering Heights was the best, but I can certainly understand why many people have remembered it fondly.

Lacking in places but when it's good it's great

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 2 March 2014]

Hopefully that does make sense. The book is a masterpiece but is almost unfilmable, so no matter the quality of the final product any attempt should be given some credit. This Wuthering Heights was a little disappointing, especially compared to the Laurence Olivier and even the 1998(the most faithful adaptation) versions, but it's not best at all, it is better than the 2011 film which was too avant-garde and had the child and adult actors/counterparts looking and acting nothing like one another. There are things that could have been done better. The main problem is that the story does jump around a bit too much though not quite in an incoherent way, I did wish that some scenes were given more depth and that we got to know the supporting characters more. The ending was bungled, dramatically it underwhelms in how clumsy it is and will leave one infuriated rather than moved. And while what was in the script was good, well-written and brooding some of the famous lines are either omitted or don't have the impact, if it were the opposite there may have been more emotional punch and depth.

At its best though, this adaptation of Wuthering Heights is great, especially in five areas. The best thing is definitely Timothy Dalton as Heathcliff, handsome and brooding Dalton has never been more savage or tortured, he never overplays the brutish side of this truly difficult character to pull off and he doesn't underplay the more humane side either. Then there's the music, which is unforgettably melancholic, enough to make you cry often, of all the Wuthering Heights adaptation this gets my personal vote as the one with the best and most effective score. Like the 1998 adaptation, the scenery is enough to take the breath away yet there is a wonderful atmosphere about them too and in an evocative way. The photography is very fluid and allows us to enjoy the atmosphere and scenery, doing this without being too flashy, while the costumes are beautifully realised and true to period, never too over-opulent or drab. And then there is the memorable scene with Heathcliff at Cathy's grave and the luring of Heathcliff by Cathy's ghost, which is incredibly haunting. A shame that what followed didn't work anywhere near as well.

The cast are fine on the whole, though Dalton dominates and the only one perhaps who stays long in the memory. Anna Calder Marshall is a fiery and sensitive Cathy and shows some intense and tender chemistry with Dalton. That is not to say she doesn't have some poor moments, her screaming of "Heathcliff" were even more grating than Sally Field's "Don-kee" in the 2000 adaptation of David Copperfield. Ian Ogilvy is a gentle and very likable Edgar, if at times a little too on the meek side(not his fault, Edgar is not the strongest of characters in the book either). Julian Glover is appropriately menacing as Hindley, though the Hindley in the 1998 adaptation brought some tragedy and torment to the character which made him somewhat more dimensional. Harry Andrews brings warmth to a kindly character and Judy Cornwell is similarly spot-on as Nellie. The storytelling is uneven, but the atmosphere is very well-done and there are some good scenes like the one mentioned above. The script is a little skimmed-over quality but it's not badly written at all and doesn't disgrace Emily Bronte's prose(much more however could have been done with the famous lines). The direction is far from amateurish too.

Overall, far from a bad version but as an adaptation of the book it will be left wanting. It has a lot of good things, some like Dalton, the music and scenery can be classed as great. But a few big areas like the ending, the flow of the story and some parts of skimming-the-surface writing are lacking quite a fair bit. 6.5-7/10 Bethany Cox

Missed Opportunity to be the best version

[kieran-wright · 6/10 · 28 February 2010]

OK - first let me say that there has been a lot of talk about this version vs the 1992 version with Fiennes and Binoche. In fact, both productions made one fundamental mistake which would have otherwise rendered each version near perfect - they cast the wrong female leads. Calder-Marshall is far too posh for Cathy. My goodness me though - Dalton is perfect as Heathcliffe. I'm going to put this down to the make up department but it's actually hard to believe that Calder-Marshall is about 3 years younger than him. I actually think she is a good actress, but certainly miscast as Cathy. What really galls me though is the screenplay which takes such liberties with the story, much of which is simply left out and a completely different ending formulated. The last time I felt so cheated was when I watched Captain Corelli's Mandolin! Bottom line - a great example of a real missed opportunity to be the definitive version...

Four stars; a stirring tale of love on English hillsides

[becky215 · 30 December 2002]

My mother had seen this movie in theaters as a girl and, since then, has always commented on how "romantic and secretly sexy" Timothy Dalton and the picture were. I recently saw the film for the first time and could not agree with her more. I was impelled to read the book afterwards and did so in 7.5 hours! I couldn't put it down! The movie was strikingly different from the book but was still wonderful. Dalton and Calder-Marshall shine in their roles. The camera-work is excellent but not even the glorious English moors can distract us from the love of Heathcliff and Cathy. While most likely a "chick flick," this movie is to be enjoyed by all.

Not as good as the '39 version, but I prefer it anyway.

[Brooklynne · 7/10 · 10 December 2004]

Several people have mentioned the music from this film, and for good reason. This was one of a handful of extraordinary scores by the largely forgotten Michel Legrand (THREE MUSKATEER 1974; SUMMER OF '42, BRIAN'S SONG, among others), and is one of my favorite twenty or so film scores ever. This movie, well-photographed as it was, simply reeks of Gothic atmosphere in great part because of this music. Passionate, sensual, beautiful, and tremendously dramatic, it was even released as a record album in 1970 by the short-lived American International Records Label and, unfortunately, has never been made available on CD. It would be worth a purchase on eBay! I also feel that, while Dalton as Heathcliff is by no means in the same acting league as Sir Laurence Olivier, his passion for Calder-Marshall (who is less effective as Cathy than was Merle Oberon) is nonetheless more urgent and less studied than Oliver's was in the '39 version.

I enjoy the original film for its moody black and white imagery and its fine romantic score (by Alfred Newman, also not available on CD); but, though it's admittedly a lesser film, by a small margin I prefer this 1970 take which, without Legrand's evocative scoring, would probably have been a bust.

Some Good Scenes, But Misses the Mark

[Jennel2 · 7/10 · 18 January 2002]

This version of Wuthering Heights was pretty much dismissed by the major reviewers back in 1970. Many of those reviewers couldn't get past the American International logo before ridiculing the movie as second rate teen angst. It has been treated more kindly in later years (three stars in Maltin's guide), but the film falls short in several areas. It's true that AIP spent more money on this than they normally did. Even the Corman Poe movies had a lower budget than WH. They hired a few middle level "name actors," primarily Harry Andrews and Pamela Brown (who is in only two scenes). Robert Fuest was not exactly a name director (before or after this) but he had delivered a big hit for AIP in "The Abominable Dr. Phibes." So, this was probably his reward.

I agree that the photography was the film's best asset, and the late John Coquillion, who shot it, went on to a fairly distinguished career, including shooting three Peckinpah films. The decision to film "on location" was also good, and the moors look appropriately bleak.

The major problem for me was not that the movie ends (as the 1939 version did) halfway through the novel, but that the transitions are abrupt and jarring. Now I have only seen it on vhs--the original EMI- HBO tape, not one of the later cheap versions--but I think It was uncut. There is, for instance, an unexplained gap from Cathy's decision to marry Edgar. Suddenly she married him, and his parents are both dead. There was a lame attempt to explain this in a scene of Edgar and Cathy in the graveyard. The sequence of Heathcliff seducing Edgar's sister is trite, as is the "shampoo commercial" ambiance of the love scene between Heathcliff and Cathy.

On the plus side Andrews and Julian Glover (as the adult Hindley) give good performances. I get the feeling that if AIP had been willing to spend a bit more, and maybe rework the script a bit for pace, this could have been a very good film. But as Sam Arkoff was once quoted in an Esquire magazine article about the AIP Beach Party movies, "Sometimes we get some director over here from the majors, and he says 'Sam if I could just have two more days, I could make you a good picture.' The hell with that," Arkoff continued. "We're not 'artsy-fartsy' at AIP!"

Just Long Enough!

[Sylviastel · 7/10 · 4 July 2011]

I do like this version of Wuthering Heights and I believe it would be appropriate for the schools since I'm an English teacher. It's funny because I loathed the story in the 8th grade when we were assigned it. I found the movie to have a great cast such as Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall in the Heathcliff and Catherine roles. Judy Cornwell is perfect as the housekeeper Nelly. The other cast members include the late and wonderful Harry Andrews, Ian O'Gilvy, Morag Hood, and Peter Sallis. The storytelling is a bit different from the book. Some story lines were cut along with other characters but the thrust of the storyline between Heathcliff and Catherine was the basis for the story as well. Anyway, Dalton's Heathcliff is dark and mysterious. Calder-Marshall's Catherine is quite personable and realistic for the time. It's an okay movie for under 2 hours and moves along rather quickly.

"If you got nothing nice to say, then don't say nothing."

[rinoa-3 · 4/10 · 16 May 2008]

I apologize for the unrelated, grammatically poor Eminem quote, but it does wonders at expressing my feelings towards this film. I won't even bother to write an elaborate review (not that I'd have much material to work from if I wanted to, anyway), so these are just some quick, random thoughts.

When a movie is THIS different from its written counterpart, it becomes obvious that the changes are intentional. However, some things just aren't supposed to be messed with. Don't try to change a winning formula. Don't play God. More importantly, don't play Emily Bronte. This film introduces dramatic changes to Wuthering Heights's storyline, and while originality is a valuable thing and I'm usually one to praise it, I don't feel the same way about altering classics of literature that I happen to be extremely passionate about. This film is not about creativity, as the screenwriter and director probably intended for it to be: it is murder.

Murder of a beautiful, dark, intense masterpiece: Hindley a tortured soul? Joseph a relatively nice servant with normal speech ability? Ellen an annoying girl with a silly crush on Hindley? Hareton and Catherine (daughter) *unexistent*? Edgar nothing more than a cowardly wimp? Heathcliff and Catherine's love consummated? *Heathcliff shot to death*? Some of these things just go way beyond originality and into the domain of stupidity. I could perhaps forgive some changes, were at least the rest of the film -- the part that attempts to be faithful to the novel -- worth anything, but it's just no good. The scene where Catherine tells Ellen about her potential marriage to Edgar and her feelings for Heathcliff is pathetic: where's the night setting, where's the violent summer storm? And what's up with Cathy's speech, anyway? Where are all the gorgeous quotes? Why subvert even *that*?

Murder of Catherine, too, and that I would never find to be forgivable, under any circumstances. Anna Calder-Marshall's Catherine is ridiculous. She's short, unattractive, awkwardly built and possesses what is likely to be the most annoying voice to ever exist: her screaming out "Heathcliff!" is horrible and embarrassing. Cathy is just not in this woman, and vice-versa. I'm not sure how anyone could bear to be responsible for such huge, terrible miscasting: it almost feels like a cruel joke. Her overall performance actually makes me sincerely thankful for Juliette Binoche's (and to think that I used to find *her* Catherine a little blank... she seems heaven sent now).

Timothy Dalton (and a couple of background music pieces, and Ian Ogilvy's hotness) is the only good thing about this film. He makes a fine Heathcliff, despite the wrong eye color, but that's something most movie versions are wrong about, so let's just swallow it and move on. He's attractive in a wild, intense way, and truly genuine.

I really, really recommend that you do NOT see this movie, especially if you're in love with the original novel. I suppose it's not the worst thing you could do, but it's certainly a waste of 104 precious minutes.

Whatever Souls Are Made Of, His And Mine Are The Same

[Noirdame79 · 9/10 · 12 March 2006]

Having seen this movie some years ago on video, I'm very excited that it is available on DVD. While Sir Laurence Olivier and Ralph Fiennes have both done respectable turns as Heathcliff, Timothy Dalton is just glorious. He embodies the character's passion, ambivalence and consuming torment and longing for Cathy splendidly. Anna Calder-Marshall, while perhaps not one would think would make an ideal Cathy, is wonderful as the Yorkshire lass. Oh, how these two sizzle! Whenever Dalton speaks, or broods, the room temperature just seemed to skyrocket! The ill-fated lovers find themselves separated and bound by circumstance and other people, leading to tragic results.

Sure, the consummation of their relationship did not occur in the book, but with young hot actors like Timothy and Anna, how could the filmmakers not succumb to temptation? The locations (complete with windswept wild moors) and music score by Michel Legrand are intoxicatingly gorgeous as well. I don't know how Emily Bronte would feel about this adaptation, but I'd like to think that this production would have done her proud.

Like some other viewers, I was disappointed that the second generation were not featured and that the ending seemed tacked on. Also, I seem to remember a few other scenes from the VHS (there is a still from one of them on the DVD jacket) that are not included on the disc. Those are the only things that stop me from giving this movie 10 stars. But this version captured the passion and intensity between Heathcliff and Cathy.

The DVD transfer has been wonderfully restored, a big improvement over the VHS print. A few specks and scratches show from time to time, and other than that, aside from the hairstyles (which indicate the decade in which it was made), you wouldn't think the movie is 40 years old.

Make sure you've got a fan going, as well as ice cold drinks, because the heat will go way up!

Anyhow a gripping experience, not easily forgettable

[jgcorrea · 6/10 · 12 July 2022]

The 1939 version of this kinda masterpiece of English literature was by and large superior. Not in the least because Timothy Dalton cannot rival Laurence Olivier as the protagonist Heathcliff. But this movie also stands out for its absolute darkness, its love story of rarely equaled tragedy, its sublime description of the desolate Yorkshire moors, its characters of astonishing depth and its hint of fantasy.

Contains names of characters and events loosely tied to Emily Bronte's novel.

[jdymond · 3/10 · 6 February 2011]

I can only imagine that the cliffsnotes picture that represents this title is because the screenplay is based purely on the cliffsnotes version of the book. The acting in this movie is lousy at best and painful at the worst. They missed the mark on pretty much every relationship and personality. At times, they were just completely making things up. What was wrong with Bronte's dialogue and plot? Not to mention the fact that they left out an entire generation and the second half of the story.

Like the 1939 version, the movie ends shortly after Cathy's death with a another completely bogus fabrication. Hareton doesn't apparently survive past infancy, Linton Heathcliff never exists, and Cathy Linton is only mentioned prenatally, thus the story has no redeeming ending. Except I suppose of the possibility that Hindly and Isabella outlive everyone??

Don't waste your time on this version. The 1992 version is infinitely better, you get the whole story, accurate personalities and decent acting. Even the 1939 version has much better acting, and the passion and relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff makes sense even though it ends half way through the novel as well.

So Passionate - The Best of all the Wuthering Heights

[PhilauraJ · 10/10 · 17 October 2002]

I fell in love with Timothy Dalton the first time I saw this film. Later I fell in love with the film. So much about it was so genuine. Most of all the unbridled passion between Heathcliff and Cathy. As depicted by Dalton and Marshall in this film the passion is so powerful the viewer can believe without doubt that it has the power to tear lovers to shreds. In other versions of Wuthering Heights, for me, it was always questionable. One of my favorite films.

Fair approximation

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 27 March 2022]

A fair approximation of the Emily Bronte novel. Yes, they changed a lot here, including excising the whole ending, but I expect that from filmed adaptations and am more interested in how they stand on their own right. AIP bring their usual strong production values here, with a nicely-filmed setting and a fine little cast of seasoned, familiar performers. It perhaps doesn't have as much power as it should have, but overall it works.

Really not worth your time

[jem132 · 4/10 · 23 March 2009]

My mother's fond memories of viewing this in the cinema as a teenager lead me to seek out this film on DVD. After seeing it, it's fair to say that the only way a person could enjoy this movie is if they are a dizzy, romantic thirteen year old who can look past the bad acting and weak production. Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall are Heathcliff and Cathy, and their casting is one of the film's main weak points. A young Dalton may look darkly handsome, but he's no match for Laurence Olivier (who director Robert Fuest clearly wants him to channel) in the 1939 William Wyler version, who simply IS Heathcliff. Merle Oberon gets routinely bagged for her work as Cathy in the same film yet next to Calder-Marshall's work she's excellent! As with the 1939 film, the entire second half of the novel is cut out, but that's the least of the film's problems. It just never manages to fire-there is no passion in this movie. The colour is washed out, the script fails in just about every scene and none of the cast are memorable. Case in point is Heathcliff's return to Wuthering Heights, a reborn gentleman after being abroad. Olivier's vengeful return is unforgettable, Dalton just walks through the door and the film continues lagging on.

Samuel Arkoff's Best

[philwissbeck · 19 September 2001]

The 1970 version of Wuthering Heights is the best version of the novel on film. Restrained, realistic, it did not go "over the top" emotionally like the 1939 one. Timithy Dalton' s portrayal of Heathcliff is very passionate but is more of a real person instead of just a romantic idel. Samuel J. Arkoff died yesterday. He made a lot of low budget exploitation pictures in the fifties and sixties.

They were fun and not demeaning like the films of today. In 1970 he made this very serious film and was never really given the publicity or the credit he deserved.

You're a stinker and you stink!

[decroissance · 6/10 · 20 July 2008]

Jennel2 and Rinoa3, I am with you. I also don't want to take too much time writing about this, but here goes: Why did the movie jump from one plot point to another with no development or connection? Was it trying to be the "New Wave" Wuthering Heights? Was it just the schedule? The script? Whatever, the jumping around made it fragmented and jarring.

I liked Anna Calder-whatever, although she was screechy. She was playful and wild. I'm not sure what I thought about Dalton. He smoldered and pouted very well, but his character didn't seem full to me. It felt like he was playacting. Superficial. Also, as usual, he can't maintain a consistent accent. In the first half, there was one scene, in the stable, where he had a very coarse Yorkshire accent. Other than that, in the first half, he spoke pretty much the same as in the second half, with a refined, upper-class accent. It's lame.

I have to agree with whoever said that this novel can't be dramatised well. I think I liked Ralph Fiennes better than Dalton. Might have to watch them both again.

And did anybody else think that Heathcliff, in the first half, bore a resemblance to Nigel Terry's Prince John in The Lion in Winter? Well, I did.

All the same this movie had undeniably poignant and moving moments. Can't totally knock it. I would have liked to have been there to hear the audience gasp.

Quasimodo roams the moors!

[youremythrill · 4/10 · 3 April 2001]

I agree with whomever wrote that they liked the music in this version of Wuthering Heights ... but that's about all I liked.

I'll start with the setting. Wuthering Heights felt more like a grungy farmhouse than the haunting fortress which I remembered from the book. What happened?

On to Anna Calder-Marshall as Cathy. THAT VOICE! Whenever she'd be summoning Heathcliff, that screeching of hers sent shivers (not good ones either) up my spine. No wonder he was always hiding. I think they should dub in the bit from the 1992 version that has the crows fleeing the tree, into the 1970 version when Cathy goes a shriekin' through the moors. Sublime.

Sorry, Dalton fans, he's taking the biggest hit. Timothy Dalton got the wrong script. He was acting out the Quasimodo part in the Hunchback of Notre Dame, I'm sure of it. I remember Heathcliff as being a little rough around the edges, but sheesh, I don't remember him grunting and dragging a foot around! He was like some aloof lout, more in need of orthopedic intervention than Cathy's love. He was not Heathcliff to me, but he made a very attractive Quasimodo.

No version of this movie is on par with the book. It's so tempting to put on film because the characters are so rich and the settings and story so perfectly gloomy ... it just never works.

American International Pictures Best Movie

[Bob-45 · 10/10 · 11 March 2005]

I remember reading the review of this version of "Wuthering Heights" in VARIETY in 1970. The reviewer said, "While suffering only in comparison to the 1939 classic ...". Well, I recently saw the 1939 version and this version is in every way superior. From the haunting, soulful score to the sensitive acting, to the realistic countryside, this "Wuthering Heights" is more passionate, more brooding, more obsessive. Anna Calder-Marshall did not possess the stunning beauty of Merle Oberon, but she hits all the right notes essaying the social-climbing Kathy. Those only familiar with Timothy Dalton's sour work as James Bond will be astonished at his sensitive, magnetic Heathcliff. The dowdy Flora Robson has been replaced by the buxom, nurturing Judy Cornwell. Cornwell's "milkmaid dresses" almost overflow, and she is so nurturing one almost expects her to "pop one out" and feed Heathcliff or Cathy at some critical moment. Nonetheless, Cornwell's expressive face and body language at times nearly steals the movie, but, by no means throws it off balance.

Other fine performances include Ian Ogilvy as Edgar, Harry Andrews and father and Hillary Dwyer as Isabella.

Even the photography, editing, and, most important, directing by Robert Fuest is superior to the 1939 version. It's especially amazing, given AIP's product at the time, that this masterpiece could be made. I don't like costumers particularly, but I watch this "Wuthering Heights" about once every two years. It's worth my time because it's THAT good.

I give Wuthering Heights (1970) a "10".

Another half told story

[morgana-31 · 3/10 · 15 January 2007]

I read Wuthering Heights as a teenager. I just loved it so, after being sadly let-down by the Merle Oberon film version - it seemed to make Heathcliff into some sort of romantic hero rather than the totally unpleasant type that he was - I was overjoyed that it was finally being remade.

I had great expectations for this film. What a pity I went to see it. It was just a rehash of the first part of the book. If I'd wanted that I'd have sat through the original another time.

And an apology to all of you who find Timothy Dalton soooo sexy. He reminds me too much of a ferret to get my pulses racing.

Well at least someone did a pretty good mini-series for TV in 1978 but my advice is READ THE BOOK!

Best Wuthering Heights

[milindmitali · 10/10 · 8 September 2005]

Wuthering Heights is one of my most favorite novels. The novel is so passionate that it captures the reader from start to end. Emily Bronte has kept the grip of the novel from start to end. Both her characters, Heathcliff and Catharine dominate the readers minds throughout. Even after the death of Catharine, one can feel her existence, through Heathcliff's eyes. This movie of Wuthering heights may not cover the entire novel, but it is true to the book. Timothy Dalton has portrayed Heathcliff like no other. His love and anger for Catharine is so true to the way Emily Bronte had penned the character Heathcliff. Anna Calder Marshall has also done a great job (though she has never got credit to her role) She is not very pretty but she is very impressive in her role. Judy Cornwell has played the role of Nelly and I think it is one of her best. Nelly can feel the pain and passion of Heathcliff & Catharine's love for each other and Cornwell portrays that exceedingly well. The background music is very haunting. I give this movie 10/10.

Worst Version

[Moonshot_72 · 1/10 · 7 August 2017]

Timothy Dalton is the only saving grace of this version, the score and photography merit a mention, but the rest is abysmal. Calder-Marshall lacks passion and conviction, and appears at times to be half-witted. The deviation from the book sometimes necessary but here it's just silly. If only Michael Anderson had done his version with Richard Harris!

The 1939 version is still the best version ever of the book.

The one and only authentic film version.

[Gayle-7 · 29 July 1999]

This version of Wuthering Heights, starring Timothy Dalton and Anna Calder-Marshall, is the only one I truly feel has realized Bronte's work, no transformed it! into screen. The music, although I haven't heard it since 1970, when the film was released, haunts me today. It's melancholy flute solo underscores a savage, brilliant performance by Timothy Dalton, and I cannot understand why this version is not available on video. Bravo! Timothy Dalton. You are Heathcliff, and this is one of my all-time favorite films. Certainly the one I most miss being able to view.

I hardly could stay awake.

[dfalk · 2/10 · 6 July 2000]

I can not see how this is rated so high by others. I could barely sit through it. I have left very few movies once I have paid my money. If I hadn't been on a date I would have been out of there. Only thing that recommends this movie is the cinemaphotography.

the adopted gypsy boy taking over the family and their property as a revenge for a love that was denied...

[clanciai · 10/10 · 30 July 2014]

On the whole, I agree fully with Bob-45's excellent review above, and there is little to add, except that all are perfect in their parts, definitely excelling the classic 1939 version with Laurence Olivier and Merle Oberon. Particularly outstanding are Julian Glover as Hindley and the overwhelmingly beautiful music by Michel Legrand. I must agree with Bob on the full score of 10, although the end of the novel is missing. Instead, there is an another end to it which actually rather completes the picture than robs anything from it. Filmed on location in the right surroundings, giving the right time feeling and using film technique for haunting dramaturgy, as a film version, it couldn't be better, dwarfing all later versions.

Chronically bad!!

[beresfordjd · 1/10 · 29 October 2005]

The two leads in this dogs breakfast are two of the worst actors it has been my misfortune to witness. I watched this open-mouthed at the ineptitude of the story telling and Daltons performance. At least he was matched by Anna's Cathy!! I have seen them in other things and they are no better, so it may not be down to the script or director, though I do not absolve them of blame. I cannot believe that anyone still casts them in anything at all. After seeing earlier representations of Wuthering Heights it makes it difficult to divorce oneself from comparing the newer versions. Ralph Fiennes appeared in another dreadful remake which was awful mainly because of the cutting and direction- the name of the actress playing Cathy escapes me. A diabolical travesty - come back Oberon and Olivier - all is forgiven!!!!