Alicia I love this movie so much

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

rinoa-3 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.

pkspringstocker I first saw this film in 1970 and it had such an effect on me I saw it three times and cried all the way home each time.In fact it still has the power to make me cry now. I remember in the cinema the gasps from the women in the audience when Heathcliffe returned to Wuthering Heights. Wow! The whole movie was so atmospheric right from the beginning with that fantastic scenery and haunting music. Timothy's portrayal of Heathcliffe is by far the most passionate and sensitive I've seen and I would have liked to have seen him in other similar roles. Naturally I have bought the DVD and also the music on vinyl-both are played regularly!One of my daughters is now a huge fan of the movie.

gjp-8 I read WH a long time ago and vowed that I would never read it again. I simply found it too dark and too pointless.I think that, had it been written today it would never have become a best seller. It is a most unusual story, there are no good guys, only bad guys and pathetic ones.But since I love Timothy Dalton (not only for his drop dead gorgeous looks, but also for his superb acting), I had to see this movie. I think it's great and almost better than the book. It left out the second part of the book which is incredibly dark and shows Heathcliff for what he really is: a nasty, cruel, scheming, mad and greedy man.As far as the acting goes, it is good. Anna Carder-Marshall is good as Cathy, apart from her screeching voice and annoying limp (for goodness sake, did she have one leg shorter than the other or what?). She is not however, as nearly as self centered as her character in the book. The rest of the cast is also excellent. Dalton is of course superb, his brooding and morose looks as well as his sensual demeanour are never cliché. The chemistry between them is at times electric.The location is fantastic,the music beautiful, the script is good and of course Tim is to die for..

Bob-45 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".