VeteranLight
I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.
Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Candida
It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.
woinaroschy_1979
I've seen the '39, '92 and another TV series of Wuthering Heights. Each has it's qualities and flaws. When I watched the 2009 version for the first time, I was very pleasantly surprised that it was a very modern take on the situation between the characters. Heathcliff and Cathy were childhood sweethearts, with all that it entails, sex too. The relationship between Hetahcliff and Isabella Linton is also well pictured, even though the idea that Heathcliff tried to love Isabella (as he says) is really not at all in the book, nor characteristic of Heathcliff. Cathy is a very modern woman, who marries a man for his money and the comfort that it brings (at least that's the message I got, I never saw Cathy's love for Edgar), but loves and above all, desires, the rough, tough and wild bad boy Heathcliff. Actyually, Heathcliff is the one here that won't sleep with her later on, because she's married and she has slept with Edgar, thus betraying him. In the end, the story depicted becomes much too modern for my taste...it's going too far away from the book. Everything is too simple and superficial, the story is about a woman that made a bad choice and married the wrong man, and dies of heartbreak because of this, leaving the 2 guys to mourn for her. Heathcliff is upset of her betrayal and punishes her in his way, while also taking revenge on those that wronged him, but his character is a lamb compared to the devil Heathcliff is in the book. Cathy is also very different from the book, where she was strong, almost a tyrant with Heathcliff and Edgar, feared and loved. Here she's a teenage girl who doesn't know exactly what to do, is prone to her emotions, and at the mercy of Heathcliff and his whims. The series itself is not bad at all, acting, scenery, directing, and music are very good...but it's not a faithful adaptation of Wuthering Heights, more of a a "based on" thing. It's a "what if" kind of story (what if Heathcliff was in fact not that bad? what if Cathy was not that strong?). Kind of a good fan fiction... So, interesting to watch, probably won't be liked by the fans of the book.
eliza_gaskell
Did not like this adaption at all. Everything was wrong, sets, location, costumes and even the cast. Where was the chemistry between these two tragic lovers? Lost on the Moors, I guess, for it certainly was not there between the two leading cast members. Tom Hardy, was OK but something was lacking...charisma, screen presence, the ability to portray Heathcliff as a man with heart? He talent is wasted, for he is very good in Star Trek 2002 and Inception 2009. This Heathcliff is over the top with melodrama and desperate! I wish someone would tell him Cathy's married, get over it!And the actress who played Cathy, Charlotte Riley, needs to speak to her agent and fire him(or her). She would be great in something else rather than this. Cathy misfortunes and bleeding heart was painful to watch and I could not suppress joy, when she finally passed away on the TV.The ITV gives great period drama's but this rendition was not one of their finest. Maybe a better director, other than Coky Giedroyc, maybe an entire different cast or a better screen writer, whatever was missing from this production, this was truly terrible. It grieves me to admit I did watch the whole 2 episodes, sadly that's 142 minutes of my life I can never get back. So I give the one star point to the dark colored horse in the production, who looked simply stunning.
TheLittleSongbird
True, it doesn't always follow the overall structure of the novel by Emily Bronte, and there are one or two slow moments. But it is beautifully done, and does a competent job of adapting a truly complicated book to screen. I don't think it is the best adaptation of the book, but it definitely not the worst. The adaptation was lovingly designed with stunning locations and exquisite costumes, and the photography was excellent. The performances were excellent, the two leads Tom Hardy and Charlotte Riley were both superb as Heathcliff and Cathy, and Andrew Lincoln and Sarah Lancashire give able support. The scriptwriter Peter Bowker, who wrote the script for the wonderful BBC drama Occupation, does a good job with the dialogue, which was in general well written and well crafted. All in all, as an adaptation it is beautifully done, not always faithful to the novel, but the performances and the visual design compensates. 8/10 Bethany Cox
patfalkenna
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.
