I loved this version. Tom Hardy is a genius, and his Heathcliff has stayed with me long after the film finished. Charlotte Riley is also very good, as are the other cast members. I've read the comments about Heathcliff and Cathy having sex, and this being a diversion from the original book, however, Emily Bronte makes it clear in her text that Heathcliff and Cathy spend many unsupervised hours on the moors together. This in itself was shocking in the days when every unmarried young lady required a chaperone, but I think Emily was leaving it up to us, the readers, to decide what Heathcliff and Cathy did with their time together. I think the interpretation in this film is a valid one. Tom Hardy's musings at the end, on his life, and on the possible futility of his revenge were very convincing and haunting. This is a film you won't forget in a hurry.
61 Reviews
modern version, modern changes
hannahoredsson27 November 2010
It is true that this particular version (one of many) is a modernized. Many details are changed from or added to the original book. This is a source of criticism from the fans. However, when a movie adaptation is made from a literary original changes has to be made so that the communication, especially between the characters' inner lives and the audience, works. I liked this version immensely. I never did get so close to actually understanding the characters (via a movie) as I did while watching this. I also love Tom Hardy's portrait of Heathcliff. It's scary and just a little bit attractive (a form of attraction which makes you uneasy rather than giggly though), which trumps earlier versions when he's portrayed more like a tall dark stranger-type (the ones I have seen are from 1939 and 1992). I like that Cathy isn't portrayed like such a flaky thing but rather a wild child and as much in bondage as Heathcliff. I always figured the story was supposed to be understood and related to. And how else to do so than through romantic tale? The book is about the horrors of love and so is this movie.
True to the Book
britlitlover20 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I am a confessed middle aged Wuthering Heights tragic- have studied the book at at University level, read it many times and seen all of the major movie and TV versions- I consider this film version to be the best I have seen. Though it departs from the plot a number of times it still comes closest to the the themes and tone of Emily Bronte's work. The cast was excellent - especially Tom Hardy who was brilliant and really "nailed" Heathcliff , for me at least. The only reason for not giving it 9 or 10 stars is the curious omission of most of the powerful dialog from Cathy's death scene. They seem to have taken all of the angst out and just left the tender aspects. That being said - they have retained much of Emily Brontes brilliant language. I am in fact, bemused by some commentary that very little dialog from the book was included - I even read the book again straight after watching the movie and can confirm that this is just not a valid criticism. Much of the books dialog was included unchanged - though in some instances spoken by Cathy or Heathcliff instead of Nelly - and a good deal of the narration was reworked very effectively as dialog.
Excellent adaptation of Bronte's doomed love story
fleurfairy20 February 2009
Yes, I have seen several versions of Wuthering Heights, the 1939 version holding a special place in my heart. But this adaptation caught me from the opening credits and did not let go long after it ended. This is not your grandma's Wuthering Heights, let's put it that way. It's dark, deadly, and haunting. Much credit for the success of this version goes to Tom Hardy as Heathcliff. Hardy's range as an actor gives new depth to Bronte's anti-hero. You see what a great man he could have become if not for Hindley's torturous treatment of him and Cathy's snobbish refusals. The scenes with Heathcliff and Cathy as young lovers are beautiful and true -- the chemistry between these two actors is scorching. But once Heathcliff turns down the road of cruelty and revenge, it's a slippery slope. Hardy's deep voice and stealth mannerisms give you the impression of a tiger waiting to strike. What I really liked in this version was Charlotte Riley's portrayal of Cathy. She isn't a tantrum-throwing caricature. She gives Cathy a likable earthiness that we can identify with even as she makes dreadful choices. The score, the cinematography, the secondary characters, everything is perfect. It may not be for everyone, but this adaptation is one that does the novel justice.
Excellent Wuthering Heights but the best?
drarthurwells25 November 2010
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.
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.
beautiful
Kirpianuscus6 September 2018
Tom Hardy deserves his Heathcliff. It is an obvious truth and this film represents the right proof. Charlotte Riley has the science to use the traits of Catherine in inspired and, in few scenes, magnificent manner. It is a wise adaptation. Modern, off course, faithfull to the spirit of novel more than to its letter, but giving the reasonable answers to the admirers of Emily Bronte novel. In clear and precise manner. So, more than a good adaptation. Because it propose a beautiful construction of plot and admirable hero but who is , more than in other adaptations, defined by his past experiences more by the pink feelings or irrational angry. Tom Hardy deserves his Heathcliff. And Charlotte Riley knows, more than imperial Merle Oberon of sweet Juliette Binoche , to give the expected Catherine Linton , seductive, charming, cruel, selfish, enloved. Another virtue - Sarah Lancashire as Nelly. And the science to propose more than a portrait of lead couple but a new, seductive, lecture.A beautiful film. About a world, its choices, its deep roots of tragedy.
Muddled melodrama
LCShackley26 January 2009
For me, the most compelling bit of film in this version of WUTHERING HEIGHTS was the opening credit sequence, which uses lots of steadicam shots to propel us into the first scene.
After that, things become more muddled. The script bounces us back and forth between the various generations of the story, tossing in characters willy-nilly but not providing us with a scorecard to keep track of who's who. Most of the main characters are so close in age that it's hard to remember who's supposed to be younger or older than the next person.
I've never understood the attraction of the Heathcliff character to generations of romance- starved women. He's nasty, vindictive, abusive, and obsessive. Is that the kind of guy you ladies really want? Cathy is just as reprehensible for marrying a decent man and making his life miserable (like the Holly Hunter character in THE PIANO).
Burn Gorman, who has played quite a variety of characters in series ranging from BLEAK HOUSE to TORCHWOOD, gives us a well-rounded character whose decline is palpable. Tom Hardy's mystique is lost on me, with his lips like slabs of raw meat; his abilities aren't up to the demands of a role that calls for the character to age a generation in 2.5 hours.
Some of the minor characters also do a fine job with the material. But the production, with its gorgeous scenery and fine building locations, is burdened by a weak script and not helped by yet another drum-heavy, Lord-of-the-Dance-inspired score.
After that, things become more muddled. The script bounces us back and forth between the various generations of the story, tossing in characters willy-nilly but not providing us with a scorecard to keep track of who's who. Most of the main characters are so close in age that it's hard to remember who's supposed to be younger or older than the next person.
I've never understood the attraction of the Heathcliff character to generations of romance- starved women. He's nasty, vindictive, abusive, and obsessive. Is that the kind of guy you ladies really want? Cathy is just as reprehensible for marrying a decent man and making his life miserable (like the Holly Hunter character in THE PIANO).
Burn Gorman, who has played quite a variety of characters in series ranging from BLEAK HOUSE to TORCHWOOD, gives us a well-rounded character whose decline is palpable. Tom Hardy's mystique is lost on me, with his lips like slabs of raw meat; his abilities aren't up to the demands of a role that calls for the character to age a generation in 2.5 hours.
Some of the minor characters also do a fine job with the material. But the production, with its gorgeous scenery and fine building locations, is burdened by a weak script and not helped by yet another drum-heavy, Lord-of-the-Dance-inspired score.
Tom Hardy Does Not Disappoint
dallasryan25 February 2012
This Version of Wuthering Heights is gritty and very up to date. Tom Hardy plays most of his characters, almost always, in a very unsympathetic way, yet his likability is always there. Hardy plays his characters with a lot of truth and if he does show any vulnerability within his characters(where we as the audience show sympathy towards him), it's always just for a moment, but there's never anything cliché about his performances and that's what makes him one of the best actors out there today as well as what makes this version of Wuthering Heights a great movie. That and also the beautiful Charlotte Riley, Riley and Hardy's chemistry is spot on(which doesn't surprise me that they are engaged in real life, their chemistry is amazing in this movie).
This version of Wuthering Heights shows in the greatest way of any movie I've ever seen how people can love one another and hate one another to the most highest extremes, being connected at the 'soul' so to say(Although, the hate is really more of a cover up for extreme pain inside, relating to this movie at least).
Very relatable in the sense where it shows how miserable we can make our lives when we don't let things go and we don't forgive where, at the source of it all, we're ultimately lying to ourselves about our true feelings, as is the case in this film.
Not an easy movie to watch in the sense that the chemistry is so good, that it pains you, as the movie viewer, to see the ultimate outcome, but nonetheless a great movie and one to see for Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley fans.
This version of Wuthering Heights shows in the greatest way of any movie I've ever seen how people can love one another and hate one another to the most highest extremes, being connected at the 'soul' so to say(Although, the hate is really more of a cover up for extreme pain inside, relating to this movie at least).
Very relatable in the sense where it shows how miserable we can make our lives when we don't let things go and we don't forgive where, at the source of it all, we're ultimately lying to ourselves about our true feelings, as is the case in this film.
Not an easy movie to watch in the sense that the chemistry is so good, that it pains you, as the movie viewer, to see the ultimate outcome, but nonetheless a great movie and one to see for Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley fans.
Watching this touched me...
calinn_g11 January 2010
... because it remembered some ideas in the book that touched me (ideas like .. humanity sometimes gives birth to inhumane, a selfish, fanatic love can produce misery etc.). i'm having a feeling of compassion for those who will watch this without having read the book first, because the poor souls won't understand what the story is really about. i absolutely dislike the way heathcliff was portrayed (and not only in this version, i never saw a wuthering heights movie in which heathcliff is heathcliff, as i imagine him in the book) and don't entirely agree with the actor chosen.. don't know why, it's something about his face, he's too beautiful and soft, the heathcliff i always imagined is much rougher and less macho. even if the guy does his best (and i must say he has a great voice, especially at the end of the movie or whenever he is playing the old heathcliff), it's just not enough. cathy is, like someone in another comment perfectly described the cathy in this movie, like a teenage girl swept of her feet by a handsome boy, she doesn't fight him enough, she doesn't seem to be able to match him. the cathy in the book was able to make heathcliff stop whatever he was doing and knee in front of her, here the roles seem to have changed, she's like an obeying wife who does whatever her husband tells her to do. she doesn't seem to have a will of her own, she just follows him. and that's wrong, in the book they were both equally stubborn and strong-willed. overall, i'll give this movie a 6, but just because, like i said before, it reminded me about the book, which i'll start to read in about... 1 minute or so..
A captivating adaptation.
Sleepin_Dragon24 June 2021
There have been several adaptations over the years, for my money, this is the best of them all. The novel is a mix of tragedy and love, almost every minute of this version gives you an intertwined intensity of both, the deep and destructive passion between Heathcliff and Cathy.
What I liked most of all, the cast, without being unkind, it felt like a very modern cast, Tom Hardy, Andrew Lincoln, Charlotte Riley and a few others, not necessarily the first names I'd choose for a costume drama of this sort. All however are perfect, no wonder we all love Tom Hardy, he is sensational, an epic mix of villain and dashing hero, that intensity with Riley is clearly visible.
I'd put the likes of Sarah Lancashire and Burn Gorman as actors perfect for costume drama, they just fit somehow.
Glorious production values, it looks incredible, the accompanying music fits the bill, and nobody can argue that the atmosphere is very much there.
Loved it, 9/10.
What I liked most of all, the cast, without being unkind, it felt like a very modern cast, Tom Hardy, Andrew Lincoln, Charlotte Riley and a few others, not necessarily the first names I'd choose for a costume drama of this sort. All however are perfect, no wonder we all love Tom Hardy, he is sensational, an epic mix of villain and dashing hero, that intensity with Riley is clearly visible.
I'd put the likes of Sarah Lancashire and Burn Gorman as actors perfect for costume drama, they just fit somehow.
Glorious production values, it looks incredible, the accompanying music fits the bill, and nobody can argue that the atmosphere is very much there.
Loved it, 9/10.
Compelling acting makes this story watchable.
cgvsluis21 August 2021
Let me start my review by saying that I do not care for the source material. Yes, call me crazy but I never liked Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, I preferred her sister Charlotte's Jane Eyre. Having said that, this is the best adaptation I have ever seen of Wuthering Heights. It had an amazing cast and they really knocked it out of the park!
In fact the acting was so compelling, I found myself completely absorbed and watching a story that I pretty much loathe.
This is a two part series that is worth watching. As much as I like Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven and vintage film...definitely skip the 1939 film and watch this!
(I have not seen the 1992 film with Juliette Binoche and Ralph Finnes.
In fact the acting was so compelling, I found myself completely absorbed and watching a story that I pretty much loathe.
This is a two part series that is worth watching. As much as I like Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven and vintage film...definitely skip the 1939 film and watch this!
(I have not seen the 1992 film with Juliette Binoche and Ralph Finnes.
Beautifully done adaptation of a very complicated book.
TheLittleSongbird8 September 2009
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
Passable, but did not expect the Bane voice for Heathcliff
jeepgirl222 July 2022
So, I've read Wuthering Heights and I've seen the Olivier version and the version with Juliette Binoche. The story of Heathcliff and Catherine is not a great romance, it's a tragic one. And destructive. These two characters brought out the absolute worst in each other as well as causing heartache and pain to those closest to them. Neither of them is heroic or noble in any way. They are selfish and self-centered, especially Heathcliff. I despise the character in every incarnation. But I wanted to see this version, because I do like Tom Hardy. But what I did NOT expect was to hear him using the very voice of Bane that he used for The Dark Knight. It was crazy! Number one, the voice did not fit the character of Heathcliff at all, and number two, Hardy said he created the voice of Bane specifically for the Dark Knight. That is apparently not at all true - the Dark Knight was released in 2012 and this movie was released in 2009. And Hardy is definitely using the same voice/accent for Heathcliff here as he uses for Bane a few years later. It's unmistakable. Which was surprising to me - Hardy is a very talented actor and I never would have expected him to recycle a voice like that.
So much promise, but squandered in quest for sensationalism
cleopatra076 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The only saving grace of this movie was Tom Hardy as Heathcliff. He truly captured the Heathcliff of Bronte's novel--not some sort of rehashed Mills and Boon archetype. Hardy could express so much emotion just with his eyes and the tone of his voice. He did not have to resort to the exaggerated declamatory style of the 1930's. I only wish that he could have been given more of Bronte's original prose to speak.
However to be fair, the other two good things that i have to credit the show with, is firstly;
a) the beautiful cinematography and the moody atmosphere that echoes Bronte's text. The gardens and the moors were delightful to take in;
and b) the chemistry between the doomed Cathy and Heathcliff. It was done with real passion and sincerity--it did not seemed forced or trite. Their love was infused with just the right amount of passion, selfishness, violence and obsession, which was electrifying to see on screen.
But unfortunately, the positives are outweighed by some serious flaws:
SPOILERS mentioned BELOW--read at your own risk
* * * * *
Why on earth did the scriptwriters have to change the ending by having Heathcliff blow his brains out? Not to mention having Cathy and him making out on the moors just after he gets whipped by Hindley. I get the symbolism of course: the blood on his back as he's making love to Cathy is supposed to represent the violence and extreme passion that exists between the couple--but really, do we have to be subjected to a blatant rewriting in order to sex it up for modern tastes?
The other thing that cheesed me off was the fact that the writers cut short Cathy's dying scene and left out some of the most beautiful lines in the book, yet they spent a long time on a gravely self righteous Linton disowning his sister. Cathy's dying scene is one of my favourite scenes and it comes and goes like a whisper on the show! Lastly, the finale with Cathy and Heathcliff looking out from behind the window--what is that? Their spirits are not to be trapped inside a house, but instead they are supposed to be free upon the moors--in the book, Lockwood swears he sees a ghostly apparition on the moors.
Ultimately, this is a production that has so much promise with the powerful resonance of Bronte's words, the calibre of actors on it, scenery and music, but squanders it on cheap re- writes in order to 'sex it up', which is a real shame.
However to be fair, the other two good things that i have to credit the show with, is firstly;
a) the beautiful cinematography and the moody atmosphere that echoes Bronte's text. The gardens and the moors were delightful to take in;
and b) the chemistry between the doomed Cathy and Heathcliff. It was done with real passion and sincerity--it did not seemed forced or trite. Their love was infused with just the right amount of passion, selfishness, violence and obsession, which was electrifying to see on screen.
But unfortunately, the positives are outweighed by some serious flaws:
SPOILERS mentioned BELOW--read at your own risk
* * * * *
Why on earth did the scriptwriters have to change the ending by having Heathcliff blow his brains out? Not to mention having Cathy and him making out on the moors just after he gets whipped by Hindley. I get the symbolism of course: the blood on his back as he's making love to Cathy is supposed to represent the violence and extreme passion that exists between the couple--but really, do we have to be subjected to a blatant rewriting in order to sex it up for modern tastes?
The other thing that cheesed me off was the fact that the writers cut short Cathy's dying scene and left out some of the most beautiful lines in the book, yet they spent a long time on a gravely self righteous Linton disowning his sister. Cathy's dying scene is one of my favourite scenes and it comes and goes like a whisper on the show! Lastly, the finale with Cathy and Heathcliff looking out from behind the window--what is that? Their spirits are not to be trapped inside a house, but instead they are supposed to be free upon the moors--in the book, Lockwood swears he sees a ghostly apparition on the moors.
Ultimately, this is a production that has so much promise with the powerful resonance of Bronte's words, the calibre of actors on it, scenery and music, but squanders it on cheap re- writes in order to 'sex it up', which is a real shame.
A beautiful, dark adaptation of the novel
ameesha-green4 January 2020
Being somewhat (!) obsessed with the novel, I've watched every adaption of it going and this is undoubtedly my favourite. It fully captures the darkness and moodiness of the novel and the almost painful love between Cathy and Heathcliff.
Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley have incredible chemistry in their roles, which isn't surprising since they were falling for each other in real life (and unlike Cathy and Heathcliff, they are still together, yay!). Their emotion and passion for each other really comes through, and it makes their complicated love story so much more believable. We can truly see how they are better together, terrible apart.
Aside from the leads, the supporting cast are excellent - particularly Nelly, Edgar, and Hindley. The scenery is spectacular, showing the beautiful wild of the moors. The script is a much condensed but fairly faithful version of the novel. In short, I loved this adaptation the minute I watched it and having watched it 11 years after its release, I loved it just as much.
Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley have incredible chemistry in their roles, which isn't surprising since they were falling for each other in real life (and unlike Cathy and Heathcliff, they are still together, yay!). Their emotion and passion for each other really comes through, and it makes their complicated love story so much more believable. We can truly see how they are better together, terrible apart.
Aside from the leads, the supporting cast are excellent - particularly Nelly, Edgar, and Hindley. The scenery is spectacular, showing the beautiful wild of the moors. The script is a much condensed but fairly faithful version of the novel. In short, I loved this adaptation the minute I watched it and having watched it 11 years after its release, I loved it just as much.
Wonderful!
phan_of_hobbits10 January 2010
A big fan of Masterpiece Theater and of classic novels, I was excited to find out there was a new adaptation of Wuthering Heights. I actually bought this on Amazon without having ever seen it, and after viewing it, I am so happy that I bought it. The film does a great job of showing the passion between Heathcliff and Cathy, and Tom Hardy in the role of Heathcliff is a perfect blend of swoon worthy and terrifying. My only complaint is that Part Two doesn't have the same pop as Part One; it's a little bit shorter, and feels more rushed. But overall, this is a wonderful adaptation that I would definitely recommend to all classical lovers.
Updated for the shallow, urban generation
patfalkenna7 September 2009
Once I found out that this had been shown in America months ago, everything made sense. I say that as an American (who moved to the UK years ago to escape the shallowness, only to find the UK caught up quickly).
I did rather enjoy this version, mainly due to the superb casting. Tom Hardy was wonderful, but I'm sure they toned down what he could have done. Even more so with Charlotte Riley, after they turned Cathy's untamed elemental nature into a teenage brat.
It was brightly lit like a soap opera (uh-- Gothic, people), and moved at an MTV pace instead of developing the relationship of the three main characters: Heathcliffe,Cathy, and the Moors. This final, crucial character was, in fact, nearly left out altogether. The whole thing could have been set in Central London, for all the difference it made to the formation and behaviour of the human characters. I suppose the filmmakers decided that psychological interaction with nature, on a deep inner level, was something today's urbans couldn't grasp. Heaven forbid we should try to convey to them another type of experience.
I was really looking forward to this, due mainly to Tom Hardy who seemed the ultimate Heathcliff, but was very disappointed by the missed opportunity.
I did rather enjoy this version, mainly due to the superb casting. Tom Hardy was wonderful, but I'm sure they toned down what he could have done. Even more so with Charlotte Riley, after they turned Cathy's untamed elemental nature into a teenage brat.
It was brightly lit like a soap opera (uh-- Gothic, people), and moved at an MTV pace instead of developing the relationship of the three main characters: Heathcliffe,Cathy, and the Moors. This final, crucial character was, in fact, nearly left out altogether. The whole thing could have been set in Central London, for all the difference it made to the formation and behaviour of the human characters. I suppose the filmmakers decided that psychological interaction with nature, on a deep inner level, was something today's urbans couldn't grasp. Heaven forbid we should try to convey to them another type of experience.
I was really looking forward to this, due mainly to Tom Hardy who seemed the ultimate Heathcliff, but was very disappointed by the missed opportunity.
A different, modern take on a classic
woinaroschy_197914 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Greatt.
ajaygs-468434 June 2021
PBS & Masterpiece Classic (Theatre) at a low ebb
jaybob8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For over a quarter of a century we looked forward to see productions of PBS & Masterpiece Theatre (now called Masterpiece Classic)
This current production of the one time revered & almost worshiped is one of the weakest that they have ever been presented.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte has been made & re-made 15 times with this current effort. This is not one of the better interpretations of this classic.Each edition has been altered from the novel to some degree.
I will let others tell of the changes in various versions.
The Novel was very long covering a few generations.
This current effort was a 2 part event. Part one was leisurely BUT they rushed through part 2 so fast,that it was very hard to follow. I normally say some shows are too long. This version needed at least one more hour to do it proper justice or better editing in the first part.
Coky Giedroyc is the director & it was adapted for Television by Peter Bowker.
Now as to the cast. Tom Hardy is Heathcliff.he is a very fine actor prior to this role he was Bill Sykes in Oliver Twist Charlotte Roley is Cathy,she was quite good. The remaining cast members do OK in familiar roles.
The production itself was no where as good as one would expect from Masterpiece Theatre (its called Masterpiece Classic now-- WHAT A MISNOMER THAT IS NOW.)
Usually these productions had much higher ratings from me. To be fair others may like it better.I personally liked the Ralph Finnies & Juliette Binoche version from 1992 best. The Olivier,Oberon version from 1939 was a bit too Hollywoodish for my tastes..
Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 72 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 10)
This current production of the one time revered & almost worshiped is one of the weakest that they have ever been presented.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte has been made & re-made 15 times with this current effort. This is not one of the better interpretations of this classic.Each edition has been altered from the novel to some degree.
I will let others tell of the changes in various versions.
The Novel was very long covering a few generations.
This current effort was a 2 part event. Part one was leisurely BUT they rushed through part 2 so fast,that it was very hard to follow. I normally say some shows are too long. This version needed at least one more hour to do it proper justice or better editing in the first part.
Coky Giedroyc is the director & it was adapted for Television by Peter Bowker.
Now as to the cast. Tom Hardy is Heathcliff.he is a very fine actor prior to this role he was Bill Sykes in Oliver Twist Charlotte Roley is Cathy,she was quite good. The remaining cast members do OK in familiar roles.
The production itself was no where as good as one would expect from Masterpiece Theatre (its called Masterpiece Classic now-- WHAT A MISNOMER THAT IS NOW.)
Usually these productions had much higher ratings from me. To be fair others may like it better.I personally liked the Ralph Finnies & Juliette Binoche version from 1992 best. The Olivier,Oberon version from 1939 was a bit too Hollywoodish for my tastes..
Ratings: **1/2 (out of 4) 72 points (out of 100) IMDb 6 (out of 10)
One of the better WH films
MissSimonetta30 May 2014
This 2009 adaptation of Wuthering Heights appears to be the most popular, at least at the time of this writing. It's not hard to see why: Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley have fabulous chemistry as the ill-fated lovers, and the locations used are just gorgeous. The atmosphere is great with an almost eternally gray sky and lots of desaturated color, making the few rich tones used really pop.
Tom Hardy is easily the best cinematic Heathcliff I've seen to date. He's brooding, passionate, angry, and manipulative. He's a monster, yet also strangely sympathetic. The supporting cast is fantastic. I love Andrew Lincoln as Edgar and the actors who portrayed Cathy II and Hareton were adorable.
Still, there are a few weak points which keep this WH from being great. Charlotte Riley is not a great Catherine, as she plays it too sympathetic. Catherine is selfish and even cruel, and Riley does not come across that way. The writing deserves part of the blame for that as well, giving Catherine some of Nelly's lines about how Heathcliff should not seek vengeance, as that's God's place. Could you see the Catherine of the novel doing such a thing? Also, the structure is confusing, especially for those who've never touched the book. We skip from the middle of the second generation to the first and then back, which is jarring.
This one's popular for a reason. Wuthering Heights fans will likely enjoy it.
Tom Hardy is easily the best cinematic Heathcliff I've seen to date. He's brooding, passionate, angry, and manipulative. He's a monster, yet also strangely sympathetic. The supporting cast is fantastic. I love Andrew Lincoln as Edgar and the actors who portrayed Cathy II and Hareton were adorable.
Still, there are a few weak points which keep this WH from being great. Charlotte Riley is not a great Catherine, as she plays it too sympathetic. Catherine is selfish and even cruel, and Riley does not come across that way. The writing deserves part of the blame for that as well, giving Catherine some of Nelly's lines about how Heathcliff should not seek vengeance, as that's God's place. Could you see the Catherine of the novel doing such a thing? Also, the structure is confusing, especially for those who've never touched the book. We skip from the middle of the second generation to the first and then back, which is jarring.
This one's popular for a reason. Wuthering Heights fans will likely enjoy it.
Mostly faithful to its source material
Dory_Darko27 June 2019
Apparently I'm one of those strange people who doesn't like Wuthering Heights. Having just read the novel, I've written a pretty scathing review on GoodReads - but for some reason I still wanted to watch one of the film adaptations, and after some research, settled on this one. Since I've already spewed my guts on what I really think of the story elsewhere, I'll simply review this film on its technical aspects.
One thing that pleased me is that it's at least 90% faithful to the book. I even recognised some of the dialogue which had been lifted from the novel verbatim. While the director has taken some creative liberties with regards to the chronological narrative, tussling some scenes around, all in all the story remains intact. While some characters have been omitted, most obviously Mr. Lockwood, there's nothing that really feels missing. Though it would have been nice if a little more time had been spent on the children's stories, not to mention Isabella's fate. Still, as a whole it's more complete than not.
There were however, some aspects of this film that slightly bothered me. Things that felt rather, how shall I put it nicely... 'low budget'. Shaky camera, a lack of colour filtering and appropriate lighting, both of which combined create a strong feeling of 'not really being there'. What bugged me the most was the fact that none of the cinematography really gave me an impressive feeling of the infamous Yorkshire moors, which were so pronounced and alive in the novel. The lack of music, which could have very strongly contributed to a haunting atmosphere, was also quite a weak point.
The cast is pretty good. Tom Hardy embodies Heathcliff very well and Charlotte Riley makes an impressive and fitting Catherine. The rest of the actors do their jobs nicely, especially Burn Gorman as Hindley.
The only point where this film really strayed from the book is that Cathy and Heathcliff aren't depicted even halfway as cruel as they're meant to be, and this is a shame because it creates a false sense of sympathy for their characters, when in truth they are monstrous people who deserve no respect from anyone whatsoever.
P. S. Now that I have the opportunity, I just have to get this off my chest. Can somebody please tell me why it is that Heathcliff is played by a white guy in every damn movie, save one...? Thank you.
One thing that pleased me is that it's at least 90% faithful to the book. I even recognised some of the dialogue which had been lifted from the novel verbatim. While the director has taken some creative liberties with regards to the chronological narrative, tussling some scenes around, all in all the story remains intact. While some characters have been omitted, most obviously Mr. Lockwood, there's nothing that really feels missing. Though it would have been nice if a little more time had been spent on the children's stories, not to mention Isabella's fate. Still, as a whole it's more complete than not.
There were however, some aspects of this film that slightly bothered me. Things that felt rather, how shall I put it nicely... 'low budget'. Shaky camera, a lack of colour filtering and appropriate lighting, both of which combined create a strong feeling of 'not really being there'. What bugged me the most was the fact that none of the cinematography really gave me an impressive feeling of the infamous Yorkshire moors, which were so pronounced and alive in the novel. The lack of music, which could have very strongly contributed to a haunting atmosphere, was also quite a weak point.
The cast is pretty good. Tom Hardy embodies Heathcliff very well and Charlotte Riley makes an impressive and fitting Catherine. The rest of the actors do their jobs nicely, especially Burn Gorman as Hindley.
The only point where this film really strayed from the book is that Cathy and Heathcliff aren't depicted even halfway as cruel as they're meant to be, and this is a shame because it creates a false sense of sympathy for their characters, when in truth they are monstrous people who deserve no respect from anyone whatsoever.
P. S. Now that I have the opportunity, I just have to get this off my chest. Can somebody please tell me why it is that Heathcliff is played by a white guy in every damn movie, save one...? Thank you.
Wuthering Heights and its best adaptation
hallowShade1 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm hardly ever thankful with book adaptations, because they hardly ever match the beauty of reading this book, and after having my dreams smashed with "Eragon"'s adaptation I had almost lost hope in movies of this type.
At first, I felt reluctant to watch "Wuthering Heights", because I didn't want to see one of my favorite books mocked in a Hollywood making. It had kind of a sloppy start, and I was almost ready to stop watching, when I saw Heathcliff. He was as close as he could get to what I thought he looked like, and this kept me watching. The story was different, of course, but these differences aren't bothering, on the contrary, many of them add some flavor.
Emily Bronte wrote a book that can hardly be translated into moving picture, since the complexity of the characters, and the bond between Cathy and Heathcliff goes so deep beyond love, up to a point that it isn't a love story anymore. But they managed to surpass that. At least Heathcliff's actor is beyond great, since he honored what I believe to be one of the most complex characters in literature. He shows accurate enough his character, his sufferings, his emotions; at times, he's ugly, other times, he looks perfect, he's awkward, he's diabolical, he's ironic, strong, weak, in pain, loving and ignorant. The storyline keeps to the book, as much as possible, but I wish they could make a better Cathy, and emphasize on their bond, not as a love story, but as a longing story.
The only flaws I've seen is that they made a bit too physical contact, and that they skipped some scenes, like Heathcliff's departure, or their moment together before she dies. But all in all, it's a really good adaptation, best I've seen since The Lord of the Rings. Despite its flaws, it gets a whole-hearted 10.
It even ended as I imagined! (SPOILER!) With their ghosts seen at the windows of Wuthering Heights, finally together. You don't get this comfort in the book!
At first, I felt reluctant to watch "Wuthering Heights", because I didn't want to see one of my favorite books mocked in a Hollywood making. It had kind of a sloppy start, and I was almost ready to stop watching, when I saw Heathcliff. He was as close as he could get to what I thought he looked like, and this kept me watching. The story was different, of course, but these differences aren't bothering, on the contrary, many of them add some flavor.
Emily Bronte wrote a book that can hardly be translated into moving picture, since the complexity of the characters, and the bond between Cathy and Heathcliff goes so deep beyond love, up to a point that it isn't a love story anymore. But they managed to surpass that. At least Heathcliff's actor is beyond great, since he honored what I believe to be one of the most complex characters in literature. He shows accurate enough his character, his sufferings, his emotions; at times, he's ugly, other times, he looks perfect, he's awkward, he's diabolical, he's ironic, strong, weak, in pain, loving and ignorant. The storyline keeps to the book, as much as possible, but I wish they could make a better Cathy, and emphasize on their bond, not as a love story, but as a longing story.
The only flaws I've seen is that they made a bit too physical contact, and that they skipped some scenes, like Heathcliff's departure, or their moment together before she dies. But all in all, it's a really good adaptation, best I've seen since The Lord of the Rings. Despite its flaws, it gets a whole-hearted 10.
It even ended as I imagined! (SPOILER!) With their ghosts seen at the windows of Wuthering Heights, finally together. You don't get this comfort in the book!
Re: Heathcliff
david-bonner419 November 2009
Heathcliff. Devil incarnate or a misunderstood man? Why not give Heathcliff the musical a try? I agree that there has yet to be a screen adaptation to the classic that lives up to the content of the novel. I would like to see this version but based on sexual situations won't because they are unnecessary. Cliff Richard's Heathcliff, though loosely based on the novel, was well done. I have read that there is another version of Wuthering Heights coming out in 2010. I hope it is much better. I wish I had studied this novel in school, but in Canada it is not available anywhere? Give Heathcliff the musical a try if you haven't already.
Blechh
TwoTooth2 July 2009
I have yet to see an adaptation of Wuthering Heights that portrays Heathcliff as the nasty piece of work that he is. He is NOT a romantic hero, not even the Byronic type. And I have yet to see an adaptation that doesn't idiotically compress or ignore the second HALF of the novel, proving that the adapters either DON'T GET IT or are blatantly playing to commercial interests (you'd know for sure H isn't a romantic hero if you saw him abusing women and children, as he does in the second half of the novel). This particular adaptation is worse than most; among other transgressions, it includes a quite illogical sex scene (likely for commercial interests), illogical because part (and ONLY part) of the tension is about sexual frustration; if you've been making out in the heather, you're not frustrated. I always hope when it's a miniseries that at last we'll get a version that does full justice to the novel. Not this time, alas.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
